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

ITA 402/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax against Nirmal Software Services Pvt. Ltd., concerning the assessment year 2017-18. The appeal challenged the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 3, Nagpur, which had deleted several additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding disallowances of consultancy charges, salary expenses, and other subcontract expenses. The main contention from the Revenue was the failure of the assessee to substantiate the claims during the assessment proceedings. However, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to the monetary threshold set by the CBDT Circular, which applies to all pending appeals.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 474275 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: CBDT Circular no.09 of 2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHAY Y. MARATHE
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER S.M.C. MATTER ITA no.402/Pun./2023 (Assessment Year : 2017–18) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle–2(1), Nagpur ……………. Appellant v/s Nirmal Software Services Pvt. Ltd. Plot no.48, Bharat Nagar Amravati Road, Nagpur 440 033 PAN – AAACN5962H ……………. Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Abhay Y. Marathe Date of Hearing – 16/12/2024 Date of Order – 20/12/2024 O R D E R 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.” 2. 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. 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. 4. 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. 5. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 20/12/2024 NAGPUR, DATED: 20/12/2024 Sd/- V. DURGA RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER 3 Nirmal Software Services Pvt. Ltd. Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Nagpur; and (5) Guard file. True Copy By Order Pradeep J. Chowdhury Sr. Private Secretary Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Nagpur "