g& /Tcw,\ cagg gnaw: 70w abppwk? NG’Oab9‘ W 20G awn-7w aafmw) kmm HIGH gOURT OF GHHARTTISGARH AT BILASPUR Horu’hle 3hfi Bhh’endfa Mishra & H‘on’iale Shri R.N. Chandrakgggg Tax Case Income Tax Appeal No.08/2007 Annenant Income Tax Officer. Jagdalpur Comm:- Versus Surendra Kumar Kataria, Proprietor, M/s. Gaurav Traders, Main Road, Keshkai, District Bastar (CG) Tax Case Income Tax Ai: neal under Section 260-A of income Tax Act 19E! Shri S. Raies hwar Rao, counsei for the appeiiant. l Respondent Present: brai Order (Passed on 4‘? of August: 2009) Per Dhirendra Mishra: J:- Heard on LA. No.1, appiication for taking documents on record. (2) Considered and aiiowed. Documents are taken on record. (3) Aiso heard on admission. (4) The appellant/Revenue hae preferred this appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’_) against the order of the income Tax Appeiiate Tribunal, (for short the ‘Tribunai‘),Nagpur on the substantia! question of law as proposed in the memo of appeals ..,._.‘_>,LN . Cw4a re 2 K ,m _. . . \l» t .. XI FC—78 WWWWW [cwccqe TA HOOK/0’) WW m 200 MW<WQ E Wmwfgmm Ag a a:a:fémané¥r (5) Briefiy stated, the fa ts of the case are that the Assessing Officer comp!eted assessment unfer Section 147/144 on a total income of Rs63,513/—. The appeal pr ferred by the assesses was firstly dismissed by the CIT (Appeals) and hereafter by the Tribunal. The Assessing Officer also initiated proce ings for levying penalty under Section 271 (1) (b) and 271 (1) (c) and evied penalty of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.4,653/- respectively The assess e preferred appeal against the order of levying penalty also. How ver, this appeal was also dismissed by the CIT (Appeals). Being ag rieved by the order of Cl‘l‘ (Appeals), the assesses preferred appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal against the quantumand penalty levied under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act and restored the matter to the file of’the CIT (Appeals) for consider ion of merits However, the appeal against the levying of pentaltv under Section 271 (1) (b) of the Act was dismissed i (6) Before entering into-the merits of the case, Shri S. Rajeshwara Rao, learned counsel for the appellant/Revenue submits that the tax effect involved in this appeal is only Rs.4,653/— which is less than the minimum monetary limit of Rs.4,00,000/— fixed for filing appeal before the High Court as per Instruction Noi279 dated 24.10.2005 with effect from 31.10.2005 of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (for short the Board). He further submits that no exceptions as enumerated in lnstruotion No.279 exist in the present case for relaxing the minimum monetary limit for the purposes of filing appeal before the High Court. (7) in View of the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant having regard to the Instruction No.279 dated 24.10.2005 of the Board wherein the minimum monetary limit for ming appeal before ., t . (‘mv‘t‘d —~3 i-i a W ,..M..WW> I w wwusagwww a , l ’9 W {mm M 2Z7 9"} ‘ %mm iant time has been fixed at Rs.4,00,DOO/— and tax effect involved in this appeal, we do not nto the merits of the case. Accordingly, we negligible tax effect. appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid (8) Accordingly) the observation. K, u ' Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge the High Court at the re‘e\ considering the negligible deem it necessary to go dismiss the appeal having Sdl— Dhirendra Mishra ‘ Judge i r Priya. Wumw TCAK (Gael joCo‘ALTQm WPQQ “(rowo 1