1 CGHC010360202024 2026:CGHC:37793 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPT No. 192 of 2024 1 - Income Tax Officer 1 (4) Aayakar Bhawan New Civic Centre Bhilai C.G ... Petitioner versus 1 - Shri Sandeep Agrawal M/s Fuetco And M/s Krishna Iron And Steel Block 13, Plot No.4 Nehru Nagar (East) Bhilai , C.G. Pan- Affpa3365n ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Apurv Goyal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 24.08 .2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioners. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction and quash/set aside the impugned order dated 28.05.2024 passed U/s 254 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, Raipur in Miscellaneous Application No. 22/RPR/2016, A.Y. 2010-11. ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Digitally signed by ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Date: 2026.08.25 18:33:02 +0530 2 10.3 Any other relief/reliefs which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 2. Facts in brief are that an assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 & 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act of 1961”) was passed against the assessee on 18.03.2024. The respondent challenged said order by filing an appeal before CIT(Appeal), which was allowed vide order dated 30.11.2015, whereby addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted. 3. The department preferred an appeal before the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) and the learned Tribunal vide order dated 14.08.2018 held that tax effect involved in the grounds of appeal raised by the department is less than Rs. 20,00,000/- as per CBDT’s Circular No. 03/2018 dated 11.07.2018 and thus dismissed the appeal of the department. 4. The department moved an application for rectification of order dated 14.08.2018 under Section 254(2) of the Act of 1961, which was dismissed vide order dated 28.05.2024. Against said order this petition has been preferred. 5. Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate would argue that subsequently CBDT issued a circular dated 15.03.2024 wherein information received from the sales tax department is in exception clause, therefore, the appeal preferred before the learned ITAT was competent. He would pray to allow this petition. 3 6. On the other hand, Mr. Apurv Goyal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would oppose. He would submit that circular dated 15.03.2024 would apply prospectively and it cannot be given retrospective effect and on the date of order passed by the learned ITAT, circular dated 11.07.2018 was prevailing. He would submit that the petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 8. Admittedly, the circular No. 5/2024 dated 15.03.2024 was issued after passing of order by the learned ITAT. The circular dated 11.07.2018 was in existence when order was passed by the learned ITAT and the contention made by the Apurv Goyal appears to be just and proper that the circular dated 15.03.2024 cannot be given retrospective effect. Therefore, the circular prevailing on the date on which the learned ITAT passed the order would prevail. 9. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Arpan