The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 20 v. Rajuram Savaji Purohit ITA No 3864 Mum 2024 Ay 2012 13

420-ITXA-936-2025 (OS).DOCX by PALLAVI MAHENDRA WARGAONKAR Date:

2025.11.11 17:43:44 +0530 PALLAVI MAHENDRA WARGAONKAR Pallavi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL(IT) NO. 936 OF 2025 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 20 ...Appellant

Versus

Rajuram Savaji Purohit ITA No.3864 Mumbai 2024 AY 2012-13

...Respondent

______________________________________________________ Ms. Mamta Omle, for Appellant.

______________________________________________________ CORAM : M.S. Sonak & Advait M. Sethna, JJ.

DATED : 10 November 2025 P.C.:- 1.

Heard Ms. Omle, learned counsel for the Appellant. 2.

The tax effect in this Appeal is Rs.4,72,072/-. However, Ms. Omle relies on the exceptions in CBDT Circular No.5 of 2024 dated 15 March 2024.

3.

Even if we assume that this Appeal falls within the exception, still, upon hearing Ms. Omle on merits, we are satisfied that this Appeal involves no substantial questions of law.

4.

Ms. Omle proposes the questions referred to in the Appeal Memo for admission of this Appeal. She submits that there is an equal onus on the Assessee to explain by

420-ITXA-936-2025 (OS).DOCX producing credible evidence that this was not a case of accommodation entries.

5.

On perusing the record and the impugned order made by the ITAT, we find that the questions now proposed, relate solely to appreciation of the material on record. It is not as if no material was produced by the Assessee. The Tribunal has also faulted the Revenue for not offering the parties, based on whose statements the Assessee was sought to be incriminated for cross-examination. All these are matters of appreciation of evidence and grant of fair opportunity consistent with the principles of natural justice and fair play. They give rise to no questions of law, much less, substantial questions of law.

6.

For the above reason, we decline to admit this Appeal on the ground that it does not involve any substantial questions of law. The Appeal is dismissed. No costs. (Advait M. Sethna, J) (M.S. Sonak, J.)