ACIT 6(1)(1), MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAVAN vs. CLEAR SECURED SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI
Facts
The revenue filed an appeal challenging the order of the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2015-16. The assessee, engaged in housekeeping and facility management, had its total income determined by the AO. The CIT(A) had partly allowed the assessee's appeal.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the total tax effect of the appeal fell under the monetary limits prescribed by the CBDT, making the revenue barred from preferring this appeal. Therefore, the appeal was deemed not maintainable.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal filed by the revenue is maintainable due to falling under the prescribed monetary limits by the CBDT.
Sections Cited
250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, 143(1) of the Act, 143(3) r.w. 144C(3) of the Act, 115JB of the Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “K” BENCH, MUMBAI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM AND SHRI. PRABHASH SHANKAR, AM ITA No.3758/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Assistant Commissioner of Income M/s. Clear Secured Services Pvt. Tax 6(1)(1) Ltd. Room No. 504, 5th Floor, Aayakar 201-D, 2nd Floor, Runwal & Omkar, Vs. Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai – E-square, Sion (W), Mumbai – 400020. 400022. PAN/GIR No. AADCC5952H (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri. Shashank Mehta Respondent by : Shri. Kiran Unavekar Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 31.12.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 31.12.2024 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This appeal has been filed by the revenue, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), 55, Mumbai (‘ld. CIT(A)’ for short), passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2015-16. 2. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. “Whether on law and in the facts of the instant case, was the Tribunal right in directing the AO to include M/s Strategic Manpower Solutions Ltd as the comparable ignoring the facts that the information gathered by TPO from the said company clearly indicates that it is involved in the field of sourcing recruitment, training, engagement and staffing services. 2. Whether on law and in the facts of the instant case, was the Ld. CIT(A) right in allowing the appeal of the assessee by upholding the benchmarking done by
2 ITA No. 3758/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2015-16) M/s. Clear Secured Services Pvt. Ltd. assessee under Cost Plus Method as Most Appropriate Method (MA) and rejecting the method adopted by TPO i.e. Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as most Appropriate Method (MA) for benchmarking? 3. The Appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 4. The Appellant craves leave to amend, or alter any grounds or add a new ground, which may be necessary.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of housekeeping and facility management services and had filed its return of income dated 30.09.2015, declaring total income at Rs. 9,58,53,096 and the same was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. The assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny and the assessment order dated 12.12.2018 was passed by the ld. AO u/s. 143(3) r.w. 144C(3) of the Act, thereby determining total income at Rs. 11,22,75,619/- under the normal provisions and Rs. 9,34,95,897/- as book profit u/s. 115JB of the Act. 4. Aggrieved the assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority, challenging the assessment order. The ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 28.05.2024, partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. 5. The revenue is in appeal before us, challenging the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) on the grounds specified above. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The learned Authorised Representative (‘ld. AR’ for short) for the assessee submitted that the appeal filed by the revenue would fall under the prescribed monetary limit by the CBDT vide circular No. 3/2018, 17/2019, 5/2024 and 9/2024 and prayed that the appeal be dismissed.
3 ITA No. 3758/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2015-16) M/s. Clear Secured Services Pvt. Ltd. 7. The learned Departmental Representative (‘ld. DR’ for short) had nothing to controvert the said fact. It is observed that the total tax effect of the present appeal would fall under the monetary limits prescribed by the CBDT, where the revenue is barred from preferring an appeal before the Tribunal challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A). We therefore deem it fit to dismiss this appeal as not maintainable, by holding that the same would fall under the low tax effect, with the liberty given to the revenue to restore the appeal if in case the same falls under the exception specified in said circular. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 31.12.2024
Sd/- Sd/- (PRABHASH SHANKAR) (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 31.12.2024 Karishma J. Pawar (Stenographer) Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT- concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard File BY ORDER,
(Dy./Asstt.Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai
