3mm . .‘Vcxgv w Nof5l O7 mm in 200 m [113%W ‘ l . ....... ..............................Wt 200 ..............................................m ................................................ mmmm _;‘ Shri Shashank Dubey, learned Sr. Counse! appearing for the ippeai is barred by Iimitation as the y of one day and no application fer mt appeal has been filed. He further the monetary limit of Rs.4,00,000/— as‘presc‘ribed in Circular No‘.279 dat d 24-10-2005 issued by the Centrai Board of Direct Tax and the same has Come into force with effect from 31 -1 0-2005. Learned counsel forethe resp ndent further submits that as per law ' laid down by this court in the ma er ofAssistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle-1, Bhilai vs. S Mahavir Prasad Verma (Tax Case (l.T.A.) No. 21 of 2007) decided o 16-6-2009, it has been held that the time limit' prescribed under Section 260-A of the Act to file the appeal before the High Court is absolu - section 5 of the Limitation Act. Shri S, Rajeshwar Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant does not dispute the above propositi 3n of laW‘as well as fact. ln View of the foregoing, the , by law of limitation. WWW'3wmR $Wm Raju respondent submits that the instant: same has been preferred with dela condonation of delay in 'tiiing the inst: submits that the tax effect is less th and unextendable by court under Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge \. Sd/. R.N. Chandrakar Judge tee sea nstant appeal is dismissed as barred