$5$§z @ndm — 2 ircumstances of the case whether the Income ax Tribunal was justmed in taw in hoiding the losses incurred during the accounting year 20 0-01 and ciaime‘d in the accoUnting year 2001 2.was correctly aiiowed?” 2. “On the facts and (2) Briefly Stated: the facts of th case are that the Assessing Omcer passed the assessment order und r section 143(3) of the Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (hen eforth the ‘Commissioner') took up the matter under Section 263 of the ct and observed that the Assessmg Otficer overlooked the aggregate su of Rs 3 07 134l— and accrued to the respondent/assessee as losses d rino the assessment year The assessee chalienqed the order oft e Commisstoner before the Tribunal By the impugned order, the Tr al has upheld the order of the Assessing Officer by setting aside order of Commissioner. learned counsel for the appellantt tthe total tax effect invoived in this appeal is less than the monetary ilmit of RS400 OOOI- fixed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (C DT) Vide its Circular No 279 dated 24 1O 2005 He has also fairly s bmitted that none of the exceptions enumerated in the said circular are resent in this case. do not deem it necessary to go into (4) In view of the above facts, Pn'ya l , l {easel r /(3) . Before entering into the me its of the case, it was submitted by c n t i the merits of the case. negligible ta% effect. Accordi gly, we dismiss i Sd/— Sd/_ EDhirendra Mishra R.N. Chandrakar Judge Judge