Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue filed an appeal and the assessee filed a Cross Objection against an order that deleted a disallowance of Rs. 1,75,00,000/- made under section 35(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee argued that the tax effect was below the monetary limit stipulated by a CBDT circular, rendering the appeal not maintainable.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the tax effect of the appeal was below the monetary limit specified by CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024. Since the Departmental Representative could not present any material to counter this submission, the Tribunal found the Revenue's appeal to be dismissible.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable considering the tax effect is below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular.
Sections Cited
250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, 35(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAILAND SHRIOMKARESHWAR CHIDARA
The present appeal by the Revenue and the Cross Objection by the assessee have been filed against the impugned order dated 30/01/2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-52, Mumbai, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2011–12.
In its appeal, the Revenue has raised the following grounds: -
1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance made by the AO of Rs. 1,75,00,000/- claimed u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Income tax Act, 1961, without appreciating the fact that M/s Herbicure Health Care Bio Herbal Research Foundation which received the donations for research was not a genuine entity.
2. The appellant craves to leave, to add, to amend and / or to alter my of the ground of appeal, if need be.
At the outset, the learned A.R., appearing for the assessee, by referring to column 10 of Form No. 36 filed by the Revenue submitted that the tax effect relating to the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue is below the monetary limit of Rs.60 lakh, applicable to appeals before the Tribunal, as per CBDT Circular no.9 of 2024, dated 17/09/2024. Further, he submitted that none of the exceptions as provided in the aforesaid CBDT Circular would apply to Revenue’s appeal. Thus, the learned A.R. submitted that Revenue’s appeal being covered under the aforesaid Circular is not maintainable.
The learned Departmental Representative could not produce any material before us to controvert the submission so made on behalf of the assessee.
Having considered the submissions and perused the material available on record, we are of the view that the tax effect relating to the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue in the present appeal is below the monetary limit of Rs. 60 lakh as per CBDT Circular no.9 of 2024, dated 17/09/2024. In view of the aforesaid, Revenue’s appeal deserves to be dismissed. However, the Revenue is granted the liberty to seek recall of this order if, at a later point in time, it is found that the appeal falls under any of the exceptions provided in the Circular referred to above.
Since the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee becomes infructuous and therefore is dismissed.
In the result, the appeal by the Revenue and Cross Objection by the assessee are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 29/10/2024