IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.388 of 2002 1. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Patna. 2. Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-4, Patna. Assessing Officer/Applicants. Versus Kedar Paswan, son of Raman Paswan, Chajju Bagh, P.S. Kotwali, Patna. .... Assessee/Respondent. ----------- 07- 21.05.2009 Heard Mr. Harshwardhan Prasad, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant, and Mr. Krishna Nandan Prasad for the respondents. This appeal is directed against the order dated 11.4.2002, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, in I.T.(SS)A.No.42(Pat)/2001. By order dated 15.7.2008, passed in the present appeal, the following questions were formulated for consideration by this Court: (1) Whether the Tribunal relying on the order of CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs.7,00,692/- being unexplained deposit in bank account. (2) Whether the Tribunal erred in accepting the fresh evidence in the form of Balance Sheet which was neither produced before the A.O. nor the CIT (A) in contravention of Rule 46A without confronting the A.O. on the issue and this renders its order wrong, illegal and without jurisdiction? (3) Whether the deletion of Rs.33,080/- by the Tribunal being unexplained deposit in bank account in the name of assessee’s daughter namely Miss. Manju 2 Bala without any materials on record is wrong, illegal? And (4) Whether the deletion of Rs.62,000/- added by way of income from other sources is wrong, illegal and unjustified on the facts and circumstances of the assessee’s case especially when the assessee failed to file the evidences supporting ownership of agricultural land and prove earning of saving from the income from agriculture? 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant does not press issue no.1. The same is accordingly dismissed as not pressed. 3. In so far as issue nos.2 and 3 are concerned, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the same are incompetent because the tax effect with respect to the two issues is Rs.58,000/- (approximately). In exercise of powers under Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, the Central Board of Direct Taxes has issued Notification dated 27.3.2000, and is reproduced hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference: “In supersession of the above instruction, it has now been decided by the Board that appeals will be filed only in cases where the tax effect exceeds the revised monetary limits given hereinder:- (i) Appeal before the Rs. Appellate Tribunal in (income-tax matters)- 1,00,000 3 (ii) Appeal under Section Section 260A/reference Under Section 256(2) Before the High Court- 2,00,000 (iii) Appeal in the Supreme Court- 5,00,000 In other words, the department should file appeal under section 260A in the High Court with respect to an issue the tax effect of which exceeds Rs.2,00,000/- (two lacs). As stated hereinabove, the tax effect with respect to issue nos.2 and 3 are Rs.58,000/- (approximately). The issue is covered by the order dated 15.9.2008, passed by a Division of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax and Another Vs. Uma Kant Mishra, reported in 2009 (1) P.L.J.R. 188. 4. In that view of the matter, the appeal is incompetent and is accordingly dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) (Kishore K. Mandal, J.) S.K.Pathak/