1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2279 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Pune ..Appellant. Vs. Bhimrao Wamanrao Galande ..Respondent. .... Mr. Vimal Gupta for the Appellant. Dr. K. Shivram with Mr. Ajay R. Singh i/b KSA Legal for the Respondent. ..... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. 7 June 2010. P.C. : The appeal has been filed by the Revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 30 September 2008. In paragraph 11 of the memo of appeal the disputed claim in the appeal has been valued at Rs.3,20,161/-. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue has stated before the Court that the statement contained in paragraph 11 of the memo of appeal has been verified to be correct once again upon seeking instructions from the Revenue. The value of the claim 2 in the appeal is below the monetary limit of Rs.4 lacs as provided in CBDT’s instruction 5 of 2008 dated 15 May 2008. However, it has been stated in paragraph 11 that the appeal was filed since the order of the Tribunal was a composite order involving nine cases “of the same family”. A Division Bench of this Court has held in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Polycott Corporation1 that the expression “composite order” must mean an order in respect of the same assessee for more than one year. In the present case admittedly in relation to the same assessee, the value of the claim is below Rs.4 lacs. In the circumstances, the appeal could not have been filed having regard to the instruction issued by the CBDT as noted earlier. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (Dr. D.Y.Chandrachud, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, J.) 1 (2009) 222 CTR (Bom) 328.