INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICE CHURU vs. SHRI KRISHAN MAA JALPA BHAWANI GAUSHALA SAMITI, CHURU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 940/JODH/2024Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 August 2026AY 2021-224 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as it did not fall under any exceptions prescribed by the CBDT circulars. The merits of the case were not considered.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed the CIT(A)'s order allowing exemption under Section 11 to the assessee. The tax effect involved in the appeal was Rs. 16,09,450, which was below the monetary limit for appeals to the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable before the Tribunal given the low tax effect and whether it falls under any exceptions to the monetary limits prescribed by the CBDT.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 11,Section 12A,Section 80G,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Jain CA
For Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Nair, Addl. CIT-DR

PER: SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR; AM :

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 04.10.2024 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2021-22.

2.

The Revenue has raised the following ground of appeal:

2 ITA No. 940/Jodh/2024 (Assessment Year: 2021-22) “WHETHER THE LD CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING EXEMPTION U/S 11 THOUGH THE ASSESSEE IS NOT REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12A AND 80G OF THE ACT? WHETHER THE LD CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING EXEMPTION U/S 11 WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE REJECTION ORDER OF LD CIT(EXEMPTION) DATED 18.09.2023” 3. At the time of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative submitted that the tax effect involved in the present appeal is Rs.16,09,450/-, which is below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals before the Tribunal. He, therefore, submitted that the appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable.

4.

The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the grounds of appeal and submitted that the case falls within the exception prescribed in paragraph 3.1(f) of CBDT Circular No. 5/2024 dated 15.03.2024.

5.

We have considered the rival submissions. The tax effect involved in the present appeal is admittedly Rs.16,09,450/-. The monetary limit prescribed for filing an appeal by the Revenue before the Tribunal is Rs.60,00,000/- in terms of CBDT Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17.09.2024. The present appeal arises from an order passed under section 250 of the Act concerning the assessee’s claim of exemption under section 11, and

3 ITA No. 940/Jodh/2024 (Assessment Year: 2021-22) is not an appeal against an order granting or refusing registration under section 12A, 12AA or 12AB of the Act. Further, the tax effect involved is specifically quantified. Therefore, the exception contained in paragraph 3.1(f) of CBDT Circular No. 5/2024 dated 15.03.2024 is not attracted to the present appeal.

6.

Accordingly, without entering into the merits of the controversy, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed on account of low tax effect. However, liberty is granted to the Revenue to seek recall of this order in accordance with law, if it is subsequently found that the appeal is covered by any exception prescribed by the CBDT.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in open court on 07 / 08 / 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Dated : 07 / 08 / 2026. Pritesh Vaishnav PS

4 ITA No. 940/Jodh/2024 (Assessment Year: 2021-22) True Copy Copies to : (1) The appellant. (2) The respondent. (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File

BY ORDER,

More judgments on Section 11

All 7,190 judgments and leading authorities on Section 11 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →