swy, v\ few '?!Tt'/-T^ ^BJ^ ^sS 's^s •^wwf,, wws6, fsi^irey J° 3TI*?ITraq; (ijcli^y) 's^nw ^fta S'R?! ^ rf<rf'^'t ^wvn\ ^ f^^ ^f^R ^affinsn^i D.B. HON'BLE SHRI OHIRENbRA MISHRA. & HON'BLE^SHRI R.N. CHklNDRAKAR. JJ Tax Case (Incomd Tax ApDeal) No.32 of 2008 Appetlant Respondent Assistont C6 (CS) mmissioner of Income Tax-2(l), Raipur Versus Shri Vinod Eianwari Lal 6oyal, C-l, Vinay Complex, Nayapara, R^iipur (C(3) 8.8.2009: Shri 5. Rajeshwara Rao, l^arned counsel for the appelkint/revenue. Heard. The appellant/revenue |ias preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, |1961 (in short "the Act") against the order of the Income Tax Appellate [Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur (in short "Tribunal") on the following sub'stantial questions of law; 1 "3.1 Whether, on the Ifacts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in confirming the order of the learned Commissioher of Income Tax (Appeals) with regards to charging of interest U/s. 234B & 234C? 3.2 Whether on the facts and in the circuinstance of case the order by the Tribunal is illegat and was not based on any \ reliable and legally acceptable evidence?" V';tr^r^: ^ -^:- --Ad^k-h--. ^(^•s"»a-^^ ^y^ "• eS 1 s \^^./ '^a.V~ ''•s'^w" tl-HC—78 -T V, fCTRi fSff STT^I g>^t}<^ ^Sf •*fWWi, 8lfll<Hil<a, T^IR?1 ?i; sn^; TW (4ciij<!^E() wnw Tif^ioiKw 2- qiF»ferat;r•wrcff'q fs^ T^R ^affinsn^ Briefly stated, facts of th^ case are that the respondent/assessee derives income by running couri^r service at Raipur. For the relevant ussessment year, the Assessing pfficer (AO) completed the assessment CTT(A) allowed the appeal and de by determining income of the asfsessee at Rs.47,26,501/-. The AO also initiated proeeedings under SectJon 271(l)(c) of the Act and interest was charged under Sections 234A, 2|34B & 234C of the Act and also levied penatty under Section 271(l)(c). The assessee preferred a(^)eal against the order of the AO before the Commissioner of Income Tcuj; (Appeals) {for brevity "dT(A)"}. The leted the interest under Section 234B of the Act. The order of the CTT(4) was further confirmed by the Tribunal, hence this appeal. | 1 Before entering into the iperits of the case, Shri S. Rajeshwara Rao, learned counsel for the app^llant fairly submits that the tax effect involved in this appeal is less thar? the monetary limit of Rs.4 hcs, as fixed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes vide Instructions No. 279 dated 24 October, 2005, for filing appeal in the High Court. No exceptional circumstance, as enumerated in'the said Circular, exists in the present case for relaxing the minimum mdnetary limit. j !:' I, ,"""IB .': kt.. %—XI^HC—78 -T-^^ ?"-r^ff^ -.^'- 'SW. VI. k'1!<*> ?t2n SH^T^T^ 7ST -41<llcfl-s), QTll'M-IS, faidiyy 3^rtT5RTCq?tgs^tr) li^nw ^ifei ww ^i'sifOTsii^ Taking into consideration by the Board in this regard, we tthe fact that the tax effect involved in the present case is less thom t|ie minimum monetary liinit fixed by the Board. and keeping in view the ^ircular dated 24 October, 2005 issued do not deem it necessar/ to go into the merits of the appeal and we (Rismiss the appeal having negligible tax effect. -____ sdy- Dhirendra Mishra Jadge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge