JI if XI-Hc-22 mm mm- m WW HIGH COURT OF CH HATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Coram: Hon’ ble Shi’i Dhirendra Mishra & Hon’ ble sH}ri R.N. Chandrakar, 11.1 Tax Casg‘E No. 33 of 2007 Appellant Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur. (CG). Vs. Respandent ' Shri Vijay Kuma: ’ Puri, IRS. Commissianer of Centrai Excise (Appéal), Central Excise Building, ( Dhamtari Road, Tikrapara, Raipur, CG. (income Tax Appeal U/s. ?60-A of'lncome Tax Act, 1961) Present: Shri S. Rajeshwar Rao, c nsel for the appellant. Shri Shashank Dubey, r. counsel with Shri Neelabh Dubey, counsel for the responden . ral Order (Passed on his 30‘“ June, 2009) Per Dhirendra Mishra, J. The appellant has preferr d this appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 196.1 (for short, “the Act") against the impugned order of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribu al, whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant against the order of the Commissioner of the lncome Tax (Appeals) as Well as cross app l preferred by the respondent/aseessee ,/ \ has been dismissed. [despair an the monetary limit of Rs 4 00 000/- as prescribed in Circular No 279 dated 24-10 2005 issued by the Central Board of Direct Tax and the same 31-10-2005. dentrfuither submits that as per law laid doWn by this court in the m tter ofyAssistant Commissioner of Mahavir Prasad Verma (Tax Case 16-6-2009, it has been held that the 260-A of the Act to file the appeal before the High Court is abs‘ol te and unextendable by court under s/ection 5 of the Limitation Act Shn S Raieshwar Rao lear ed counsel appearing for the appellant does not dispute the above prop05i ion of law as well as fact )wmion- U/’ ’“ ‘ I Shri Shashank Dubey, learned 8r. Counsel appearing for te respohdent submit$ that the instant} ay of one day and no application for condonation of delay In filing the instant appeal has been fled He further submits that the tax effect Is less th h same has been preferred With deii appeal is barred by Iimitation as the has come into force With effect from Learned counsel forlthe resp Income Tax, Circle-1, Bhilai vs. (l.T.A.) No. 21 of 2007) decided “time limit prescribed under Sectio instant appeal is dismissed as barred in View of the foregorng, the a Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Raju ’ Judge , /‘ - // - sai- RN . Chandra“ Judge k._. ease n . / /