'^JL^J^^:^-^^^.M^^1:^i^^^^^^^^^^ HON'BLE SHR! R.N. CHANDRAKAR. JJ TaxC&seNQ.17of; (Kevenue) (Assesseel Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur. Prahlad Rai Agrawai, S/'o Sunderiai Agrawai, Near Telephone Exchange Bastar Road, Dhamtari. Fresem: Shri Raieev Shrivasiava, Standing Counsel ror the appeiiant. Sh" Nss'abh Dubsy, counse! for the respondent. AL ORDER {pgacc9d cn 27m J^nu^r1/. 2010) fer Dtiirenwa Mishra. J The instant appeai preferred by the appeilant/revenue under Section 260A of the income Tax Act, 1961 i'in short "the Act") against the order of the income Tax Appeiiate Tnbunai, Biiaspur Bersch, Camp at Raipur iin short "Tribunai'") has been admitted on the foiiowing substantial question ot law: "Wttetner in rr/e i'acis ana circumsiances oi tlie case, tk^ fn^onj^ Tsix A^^s'iists Tnbt'ns'f wss f'j'stfHffci ^n •lsw. in quashing Sie Oi'dei' passed undsi' Seciion 263 and in hofrifrl€s ihat th^ Bs$tA-3^m£int ofc^f ws^.s not £inv^n€ous ^nCt ps^sJCfsCictf ^O 'U'sS IHi&^SSt 07 svV&iiUS IHGUQn p^Opas and adequate inQuiiy was noi made by tne Assesssng *^e/ ^-^ tvri:iM11v r f i'1"^ ~-^^- ^uj'r\^-'"-f ::^J r^r .H ; .r''t.:y S I \ ^- S ^—:^r/J/ 2. Brieriy staieo, racis of tne case are inat the assessee nad shown incorne irom Long i.erm i^apitai yain exceeding Ks. ^ lacs and ciaimed exempiion uncier aec'uon 'lu(,.ii3i o'i' tne Ac't i'or tne assessment yeai" 2005-06. The Assessing OffiCSt' (in short "AO") cuinpleied assessment uncier oection 14oiy) oi ine Hct. ^. Learned i-urnniissioner, jrifcorn® i ax (in snon: "iJi i j exercising povi/ers under aecuon 2o3 ot ine Act nonced that the AO nas compietea assessrnent wiinout proper ana aaequaie enauiry, wnicn was ironeous and preiuaiciat to ine interest o'f trte revenue, ana ineretore, . set aside ine said order under Section 263 for making fresh assessrnent aiter conauciing proper enquiry. 4 ^- The assessee aggrieved by the order of ihe CIT, preferred appeai befbre ihe Tfibunai. Learned Tribunai aiiowed the appeai by the impugned order with a flnding that ieai'ned CIT was not jusiified in hoidinfl tnat the AO aiiowed' exemption under Section i0(38) or the Act wiihout making proper enquiries, and furi:her heid that the order of the AO cannot be held to be erroneous or prejudiciai to the interest of the revenue and ihe present case was not fit for invoking provisions of oecuon <:oj or tne ACI. 3hri Rajeev Shrivastava, iearned counsei for tne appeiianu'revenue, on instructions from the department, before entering into merits or tne case, fairiy submits that even if the order passed by ieamed-CiT under Section 263 is upheld, tax efrect invoived in this appeal is iess than tne rn.nimum moneiary iirnrt or Ks.4 lac as uxea &y' ine uentrai Boara or Direct Taxes vide its instruciions HoS/Go dated 15.5.2008, according to which for preferring appeai before the High Court, the minimum tax efrect has been fixed at Rs.4 iacs. Meard iearned counsei tor the oarties. The Centrai Board of Direct Taxes (in short "the Board") issues insu-uctions .to the income-tax autnoniies by way or issutng cireuiars from time to time. The Boai'd, vide instruction No.5/08 dated 15.5.2008, in supersession of the eariier instructions, insti'ucted the income-tax authorities regarding the monetaiy iimlts and conaitions for nling departmeniai appeais before i.he Appeiiate Tribunais, High Courts and Suoreme Court. Instruciion No.3 deais with the rnonetary iimits, insiruction No.4 defines the tax eftect, whereas instructions No. 8 & a mention the conditions, in which adverse judgments are to be coniested irt'espective of the tax effect. As per above instt'uctions, for nling appeai before tne High Court, the! minimum monetary iimit has been tixed at Rs.4 iacs. Thus, in view of the iatest instruction dated 15.5.2008 and Section 268A of the Act, we do not deem it necessary to 90 into the merits of the case. Accofdinyiy, the appeai is uismissed for having negligibie tax effect. —" Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge Y\