Loading judgment…
Facts
The revenue filed an appeal against the order of the CIT (Appeals) that deleted additions made by the Assessing Officer related to delayed payments of employee contributions to provident fund and ESI, and disallowances of business and interest expenses. The assessee also raised grounds challenging these additions. Subsequently, the assessee filed an application stating the tax effect in the appeal is below the prescribed monetary limits.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted an application stating that the tax effect in the appeal was below the monetary limits prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals by the revenue. Based on this, the appeal was dismissed.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal should be dismissed due to low tax effect, as per CBDT circulars.
Sections Cited
36(1)(va), 43B, 143(3), 147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Before: SMT BEENA PILLAI & SMT RENU JAUHRI
Appellant by : Shri Hemang Shah Respondent by : Smt. Paresh Deshpande – Sr. A.R. Date of Hearing 07.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement 10. 10.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :- This appeal has been filed by the revenue against the Order of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the ‘Act’ in short] vide DIN & Order No. CIT(A)/Jam/33/07-08/445 Dated 28.06.2010 for the Assessment Year 2001-02.
2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: a. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,08,886/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the I.T. Act, 1961 being the delayed payment of employees contribution in provident fund before the due date by wrongly applying the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Alom Extrusion Ltd. (319 ITR 306) b. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,65,004/-, which is (A.Y. 2001-02) Bombay Minerals Ltd. disallowable u/s 43B of the Act as these amounts were not paid even before the due date of filing of return of income. c. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 23,536/- being the payments of ESI which were not paid within due date by wrongly applying the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Alom Extrusion Ltd. (319 ITR 306) d. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,71,540/- being the amount disallowed out of various business expenses without appreciating the AO's contention that several of the vouchers were without name of the recipient, signature and nature of transaction mentioned therein. e. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 23,75,311/-being the amount disallowed out of interest expenses, as the same was attributable to interest-free advance given to sister concerns.
The appellant craves to leave to add, to amend and/or alter any of the grounds of appeal
, if need be.
3. The appellant, therefore, prays that on the grounds stated above, the order of CIT(A) Jamnagar may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.”
3. At the outset, it is noticed that the assessee has submitted an application dated 01.10.2024 stating that the tax effect in the appeal is only Rs.15,52,843/- which is below the monetary limits prescribed by the CBDT as per circular no. 9/2024 dated 17.09.2024, wherein, the monetary limit for filing of appeal by the revenue before the tribunal has been specified at Rs.60,00,000/-. 3.1. The appeal is hereby dismissed on account of low tax effect.
4. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 10.10.2024.