HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Bg: Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra & Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar. JJ. TaxCaseNo. 173 of 2010 Appellant (Revenue) Respondent (Assessee) Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Jai Shankar Vyas, S/o Late Manaklal Vyas, Geedam Road, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) Appeal under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act. 1961 Present: Shri Rajeev Shrivastava with Shri Sameer Shrivastava, counsel for the appellant/revenue. ORAL ORDER' (Passed on 17th January, 2011) Per Dhirendra Mlshra. J Heard. (1) This revenue tax appeal under Section 260 Chapter-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (henceforththe'Act') is directedagainst the order dated 24.11.2008 (Annexure A-3) passed by the (ncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bilaspur Bench (Camp at Raipur) and appellant has preferred this appeal on the fotlowing substantial question of law:- 'Whetheron the facts andin the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble !TAT was jusWed in confirming the order of the CIT(A), when such order was based on the evidence produced before him for the firsttlme, which was admitted by him without complying the requirement of Rule 46A of the fncome Tax Rules and without giving ^I^IiilSIiSllfiiliS'8S8StSS^^^SSSSBiSISBRiil! Sffigs ^^ any opportunity to the AssessSng OfRcer to rebut or examine the same? (2) Briefly stated facts of the casg as projected in the memo of appeal are that theAssessing Offlcer after issuing notice under Section 148 ofthe Act, completed the ex-parte assessment under Section 144 ofthe Act on the total income of Rs. 6,97,210/-. The appeal preferred by the assessee, the CIT (Appeals) allowed the appeal directing the Assessing Officer to take only % of the rental income in the hands of the assessee. The appeal preferred by the revenue has'been further dismissed by the Tribunal by the impugned order. (3) Before entering into the merits of the case, learned counsel for the appellant fairly submits that in the instant case the total tax effect involved is only 2,09,163/-, which is less than monetary limit of Rs. 4,00,000/- fixed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (henceforth the 'Board') vide instruction No. 5/2008 dated 15.05.2008 for filing appeal before the High Court. (4) ln view of the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and considering negligible tax effect involved in this appeal, which is less than minimum monetary limit fixed by the Board for filing an appeal before this High Court, we do not deem it necessary to go into the merits of the case and we dismiss this appeal having negligible taxeffect. Vijay Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge