आदेश / O R D E R

PER SS VISWANETHRA RAVI, J.M :

These three appeals by the Revenue are against the separate orders dated 08.09.2025, passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), Chennai-20, for the assessment years 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22, respectively.

2. Since issues raised in these appeals are similar based on the same identical facts, with the consent of both the parties, we proceed to hear the appeals together and pass consolidated order for the sake of convenience. The ld. DR requested to take up the appeal in ITA No.3644/ Chny/ 2025 as a lead case.

3. First we take up ITA No. 3644/Chny/2025 for AY: 2021-22:

4. We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 1 day. The assessee filed an affidavit explaining the reasons to condone the said delay. On perusal of the same and upon hearing both the parties, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide which really prevented the assessee in filing the appeal in time. Thus, delay of 1 day condoned.

5. The appellant/Revenue raised five grounds of appeal amongst which only issued emanates for our reconsideration is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) justified in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of payment for professional or technical services in the facts and circumstances of the case.

6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Trust and conducts its affairs under the name and style ‘True Friend Management Support Service Private Limited’. The assessee e-filed return of income declaring a total income of Rs. Nil and also filed revised return of income at Rs.82,46,690/- u/s. 139(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [herein after “Act”]. Under scrutiny, notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued along with detailed questionnaire, in response to which assessee filed its submissions. Thereafter, the AO issued show cause notice and in response, the assessee filed details of documents. According to the AO, on an examination of the above material and the information available with the Department, it was found that the assessee claimed expenses software maintenance service cost to a related foreign entity without actual service or business. Further, the AO observed that during the course of search operation and on perusal of the copy of contract seized vide electronic device and information gathered during such proceedings, in connection with the search in the case of Jesus Calls and others, it was found that even though there was existed contracts for software development and maintenance between the assessee and M/s. PW Data Solutions (PWDS), the entire structure was designed to move trust funds out of India in the guise of software development expenses. Accordingly, the AO confronted the assessee to show cause as to why the expenses of Rs.6,83,66,038/- claimed as software maintenance cost should not be disallowed. According to the AO, the assessee explained vide its submissions dated 28.09.2022 and considering the submissions of the assessee, the AO observed that the transfer from the Trust or entity to another Trust or entity without actual service or business based only on few agreements alone without any rendering of services is sham transaction and held the said transaction performed in the guise of expenses based only on paper agreement but no real work or business as recorded in the agreement is performed and disallowed the above said amount, added to the total income of the assessee vide its order dated 30.09.2022 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153B(1)(b) of the Act. The assessee having aggrieved by the order of the AO challenged the said assessment order before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) after considering the order of this Tribunal in the case of Karunya Educational and Research trust (KERT) vide consolidated order dated 07.07.2025 for AYs 2017-18 to 2021-22, held the software charges paid for development of ‘EduServe’ and ‘PeopleServe’ software by PWDS as genuine in the hands of M/s. Jesus Calls, the so