Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO & SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER
Date of Hearing – 17/12/2024 Date of Order – 26/12/2024
O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M.
The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue challenging the impugned order dated 27/06/2024, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2014–15.
In its appeal, the Revenue has raised following grounds:–
“1. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 37,33,567/– on account of difference in receipts from Ordinance Factory, Pune without verifying the claim of the assesse despite the fact that the same is duly reflected in the 26AS statement of the assesse. 2 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.44,29,110/- on account of difference in receipts from Ordinance Factory, Bhandara and directing to 2 Jaypee Enterprises consider the profit element of difference in the receipts of Rs. 44,29,110/-from Ordinance Factory, Bhandara despite the fact that the expenses corresponding to these receipts were already booked in the accounts of the assessee as evident from the audit report.
3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in admitting Additional evidence without recording specific reasons further, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in adjudicating the appeal without considering the remand report submitted by the Assessing Officer in violation of the provisions of Rule 46A of Income Tax Rule, 1962.
4. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.17,35,801/- which has been taken at Rs.17,00,000/- and deleted addition stating amount can't be in round figure without examining the exact amount and fact that no tax was deducted and relief was given without any clarification of auditor during appeal.
5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.17,35,801/- u/s 40(a)(ia) despite the fact that the tax not been deducted on the contract payments of Rs.17,35,801/- not clearly mentioned by the Auditor in the Audit Report and no document from auditor confirming the above was furnished during assessment or before ld. CIT(A).
6. Any other ground that may be raised at the time of hearing.”
None appeared on behalf of the assessee respondent.
At the outset, the leaned Authorised Representative appearing for the assessee submitted that the tax effect on the amount disputed by the Revenue is below the revised monetary limit of ` 60 lakh applicable to appeals before the Tribunal, as per CBDT Circular no.09 of 2024, dated 17/09/2024. Thus, the learned A.R. submitted that the Revenue’s appeals being covered under the aforesaid Circular is not maintainable.
The learned Departmental Representative agreed that the tax effect on the amount disputed by the Revenue is below the monetary limit of ` 60 lakh for both the years under consideration.
Having heard the submissions of the learned Departmental Representative, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below, we are of the view that the tax effect on the amount disputed by the Revenue in the present appeal is below the revised monetary limit of ` 60 lakh as per CBDT Circular cited supra. It also 3 Jaypee Enterprises stands clarified by the CBDT that the revised monetary limit of ` 60 lakh, as per the aforesaid CBDT Circulars, would also apply to all pending appeals. In view of the aforesaid, Revenue’s appeals deserve to be dismissed. However, the Revenue is given liberty to seek recall of this order if, at a later point of time, it is found that the appeal fall under any of the exceptions provided in the CBDT Circular referred to above.
In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 26/12/2024