What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect of the disputed amount was below the revised monetary limit for appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions made on account of disallowance of consultancy charges, salary expenses, data entry charges, and sub-contract expenses. The assessee did not appear for the hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable before the Tribunal given the tax effect below the prescribed monetary limit as per CBDT circulars.

Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Akola… vs CIT | ITAT Nagpur 2024

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO

For Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

This appeal by the assessee is against the impugned order dated 13/10/2023, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)– 3, Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2017–18.

2. In its appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:–

“1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 25,87,000/- on account of disallowance of consultancy charges paid to Lamrin Solution ignoring the fact that the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings failed to substantiate its claim of paying amount of Rs. 25,87,000/- to Lamrin Solutions. 2 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,32,75,860/- on account of disallowance of Consultancy Charges ignoring the fact that the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings failed to furnish the details called for by the Assessing Officer such as total cost of the project, duration, year-wise revenue generated & expenditures claimed, & net profit earned, etc.

2 Nirmal Software Services Pvt. Ltd. 3 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 18,50,000/- on account of disallowance of salary expenses ignoring the fact that during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee failed to provide the confirmation from the employees as well as the bank statement reflecting the payment made to the employees. 4 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,10,000/- and Rs. 1,63,100/- on account of disallowance of Data Entry and DTP Charges and Sub Contract Expenses respectively ignoring the fact that the Assessing Officer cannot allow any expenses without any documentary evidences which the assessee failed to provide during the course of assessment proceedings.

5. Any other ground that may be raised during the course of appellate proceedings.”

At the outset, the leaned Departmental Representative fairly submitted that the tax effect on the amount disputed in this appeal 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.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee.

Having heard the arguments 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 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 consolidated order if, at a later point of time, it is found that the appeal falls 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 20/12/2024

SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL AKOLA,AKOLA vs. CIT EXEMPTION PUNE, PUNE

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments