IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.169 of 2006 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus M/S MAMTA PROPERTIES PVT.LTD ----------- 5 12/5/2010 Though this matter was listed for orders, yet on the consent of learned counsel for the Revenue matter is heard at the stage of admission. We have heard Mrs. Archana Sinha, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue Department. In this appeal preferred under section 260A of the Income –Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, „the Act‟), the challenge is to the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (for short, the Tribunal‟) in ITA no.328/Pat/05 pertaining to the assessment year 1998-1999, whereby the Tribunal has allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee respondent. In course of hearing, on a query being made, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue has fairly submitted that the tax impact is less than 1 lakh 70 thousand. In this context, we may refer with profit to the decision rendered in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Pithwa Engineering Works, (2005) 276 ITR 519, wherein 2 the Bombay High Court has held as under:- “This Court can very well take judicial notice of the fact that by passage of time money value has gone down, the cost of litigation expenses has gone up, the assesees on the file of the Departments have increased; consequently, the burden on the Department has also increased to a tremendous extent. The corridors of the superior courts are choked with huge pendency of cases. In this view of the matter, the Board has rightly taken a decision not to file references if the tax effect is less than Rs.2 lakhs. The same policy for old matters needs to be adopted by the Department. In our view, the Board‟s Circular dated March 27, 2000 is very much applicable even to the old references which are still undecided. The Department is not justified in proceeding with the old references having negligible tax effect”. The same view has been taken by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal vs. M.S. Agrawal (HUF), (MAIT No.4/2002). In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, the present appeal has to pave the path of dismissal and accordingly it is so directed. There shall be no order as to costs. Neyaz/ ( Dipak Misra, CJ.) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)