O R D E R

Per Bench

ITA No.37/Ran/2025 for the assessment year is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 14.8.2024 in Appeal No.NFAC/2020-21/10209914.

2. At the outset, ld AR of the assessee submitted that the appeal of the revenue deserves to be dismissed due to low tax effect in view of the CBDT Circular No. No.09/2024 dated 17.9.2024, whereby the threshold limit for filing of appeals by the Revenue before the ITAT has been fixed at Rs.60 lakhs unless the case fell in any of the exceptions provided in the impugned circular. It was urged that in compliance to the impugned circular the appeal of the Revenue was non-maintainable and deserves to be dismissed.

5. In reply, ld CIT DR could not defend the issue of maintainability of both the appeals on account of its being covered by any of the exceptions provided in the impugned circular.

6. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the orders of the ld CIT(A) clearly show that the tax effect in both the appeals is less than the threshold limit prescribed by the CBDT vide its Circlar No.09/2024 dated 17.9.2024 as the tax effect in this appeal is below Rs.60 lakhs. This being so, the revenue should not have filed appeal. In view of above, we dismiss the appeal of the revenue on account of tax effect having been become infructuous.

7. In the result, appeal of the revenue stand dismissed.

8. ITA No.52/Ran/2025 is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the ld CITA), NFAC, Delhi dated 17.01.2025 in Appeal No.NFAC/2021-22/10367055 for the assessment year 2022-23.. The assessee has also filed cross objection in C.O. No.01/Ran/2025 in revenue’s appeal in ITA No.52/Ran/2025.

9. It was submitted by ld CIT DR that the assessee had not represented before the Assessing Officer and produced evidence before the AO. It was the submission that this has resulted in addition under the head “business income” representing difference between the turnover disclosed by the assessee and the turnover as per TDS form. There was also the cessation of liability u/s.41(1) of the Act in respect of trade creditors, certain variation in regard to disallowance u/s.43B of the Act, outstanding electricity charges, unexplained investment and unexplained loan as also unexplained expenditure. It was the submission that these additions have been deleted by the ld CIT(A). It was the prayer that the order of the ld CIT(A) be reversed and that of the AO restored.

10. In reply, ld AR drew our attention to para 6.1 of the order of the ld CIT(A), wherein, the ld CIT(A) has considered the fact that in respect of difference between the turnover as disclosed by the assessee and the turnover as determined by the TDS certificate was on account of a mistake representing double addition in the TDS to an extent of Rs.32.36.97,515/-. It was the submission that when this difference representing the mistake was pointed out, ld CIT(A) has deleted the addition. He drew our attention to para 7.1 of the order of the ld CIT(A) to show that these amounts which represented the sundry creditors was actually trade creditors and this has been paid in the subsequent assessment years and creditors have given confirmation to the effect that the amounts were due. It was the submission that after confirming these facts, the ld CIT(A) had deleted the addition. Ld AR further drew our attention to para 8.1 of the order of the ld CIT(A), wherein, the ld CIT(A) has considered the fact that the PF and ESIC has been paid within the prescribed time limit and in the course of next assessment year. Ld CIT(A) has considered the fact that the amounts represented and amount of electricity charges payable to the Jharkhand Bijili Vitran Nigam Limited (JBVNL). It was the submission that the ld CIT(A) has considered the fact that the amounts have been paid and the amounts are not liable for any disallowance. He further drew our attention to para 10.1 of the order of the ld CIT(A), wherein, he has cons