1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2943 OF 2009 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.3165 OF 2009 AND INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2944 F 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 21, Mumbai ..Appellant. Versus Tarak L. Gandhi ..Respondent. Ms.Suchitra Kamble for the appellant. Mr.K. Gopal with Mr.Jitendra Singh for the respondent. CORAM : Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud & J.P. Devadhar, JJ. DATE : 22 June, 2010. P.C. : 1. At the hearing of the appeals, Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee has raised an objection on the ground that since the tax effect is less than Rs.4 lakhs, the appeals could not have been filed by the Revenue in view of the circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. In view of the fact that the Revenue had in the memo of appeal quantified the claim of the 2 appeal, which has been disputed on behalf of the assessee, we had when the appeals came up before the Court yesterday, permitted the Counsel for the Revenue to take instructions on whether the tax effect is more than Rs.4 lakhs. 2. On verifying the correct factual position, Counsel for the Revenue has informed the Court that the tax effect in each of the three appeals and cumulatively is less than Rs.4 lakhs. In view of the statement which has been made on behalf of the Revenue, these appeals cannot be entertained. 3. The appeals are accordingly dismissed though with a clarification that the Court has not expressed any opinion on the questions of law raised in these appeals. There shall be no order as to costs. (J.P. Devadhar, J.) (Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud, J.)