95m “a w)? APPELLANT (Revenue) IN THE HON'BLE HIGHIN THE HON'BLE HIH COUR OF JUDICATURE FOR CHHATI'ISGARH AT BILSPUR Tax Case No. gg of 2009 ('( COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, RAIPUR VERSUS .Ayw SMT. MANJU ROHRA W/O ASHOK ROHRA SUNDER GANJ WARD, DHAMTARI / APPEAL UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 Assessee) \/ G W3; mm (mg) ‘mmm DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR DHIRENDRA MISHRA & HON'BLE MR. R.N. CHANDRAKAR Tax Case No. (Appeal u/s 260-A of J'J' PR No. 1 324/2009] The Income Tax Ac'r, 1961) sioner of Income-Tax, Raipur'. \anju Rohra, W/o Ashok Rohr‘a Sunder‘ ard, Dhamfqr‘i. Mr. 5R. Rdo, Jr. Sfcmding Counsel for The appellanT. Mr‘. Shashank Dubey, Sr. Advoca’re for The respondent. The ma‘rfer is lisfed ”on defaui’r. Learned ‘counsel for fha: appeHan‘r submi’rs fha‘r defaul’r in question shali be removed ‘by during The course of The day. In view of fhe above subr Heard. The oppeiIanT has prefer of The Income Tax Acf, 1961 (- subs’ronfioi ques’rions of Iow:— I‘ WheTher in The facTs affixing fhe necessary oourf fee wission, fhe defauh‘ sfands cured. 'ed This appeal under SecTion 260-A :Or shorT ‘The AcT') on The following d circumsTances of The case, The ITAT was jusTified‘in la , in quashing'The order passed u/s ,(g Appellan‘r Commi: (Revenue) Versus . Responden‘r Sm’r. (Assessee) Ganj M 07.07. 2009 263 and in hoiding Thai The assessmen’r order was noT erroneous and prejudicicl fo fhe inferesf of revenue ’rhough proper and adequa‘i’e e1quiry was no‘i’ made by ’rhe A.O. before passing assessme 1T order? - Whe‘rher The ITAT was jus‘rified in quashing The order u/s 263 by holding Tha’r reluvanf papers were called for by fhe AO and were filed by The respondenT and iT consTiTuTed proper enquiry of The :Iaim of exempTion claimed u/s 10 (38)? Briefly sTaTed, facTs of Tae case are ThaT The respondenT- assessee had shown incom‘: from capital gains exceeding ‘ Rs.2,Q0,000/- and claimedexempfion under Sec’rion 10 (38) of ’rhe AcT. The maTTer was Taken up for scruTiny by The Assessing Officer (for shorT ‘AO’) and cssessmenT order was passed under SecTion 143 (3) of ThecACT. The Commissioner, Income Tax exercising powers under SecTian 263 of The AcT issued noTice To The respondenT—assessee and hereafTer seT aside The order of assessmenT by holding ThaT T e assessmenT order was erroneous“ and prejudicial To The inTeres of The revenue and remanded The maTTer for fresh assess enT afTer conducfing enquiry. \\ k wm..m Q v MZOO mm(1‘eriga§u) mmw'i: \mwm WW WW ammwgf Ay- $Wm i l l i XI-Hc—78 £47 W 200 WWW\ ammm a m 11m 31W WW WW r § r’ *m* aim m / Respondenf-assessee preferred an appeal before The tribunal and The sameiwas allowed by The Triaunal vide impugned order. Learned Senior Advocate fcr The respondem‘ submi’rs fhaf Tax effecf involved in This case is F:s.1,65,922/-, which is less Than The moneTary limiT of Rs.4 Lac as f xed by The CenTral Board'of DirecT , Taxes vide‘ iTs InsTrucTion No.3/O8 daTed 15.5.2008. He furTher submiTs ThaT from perusal of The memo of appeal iT would be evidenT ThaT The circumsTan ~es enumeraTed in The aforesaid l / InsTrucTion for preferring an ppeal where The Tax effecT is less Than The mo‘neTary limiT, do noT xisT in The presenT case. On The oTher hand, learned counsel for The appellanT does noT ' dispuTe ThaT The Tax effecT in lved in This appeal is less Than The moneTary limiT of Rs.4 Lac fixed by The CenTral Board of DirecT Taxes for filing appeal before The High CourT. He also does noT ’w” e dispuTe ThaT The circumsTances enumeraTed in InsTrucTion No.5/O8 do noT exisT in The presenT case, In ThaT View of The maTTer we do noT deem IT necessary To go mTo The meriTs of The case Tllie appeal is Therefore liable To be’ dismissed and iT is hereby dismissed. r \ i: sw- I - r‘\\\ l Sd/- RN Chandrakar DI‘HRENDRA MSI-RA g i Judge ' Judge