T HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BIL^SPUR 'BLE_SHRiDHIRENDRAMiSHRA,& 'BLE SHRI R.N. CHANDRAKAR, JJ TaxCa^e_No,_16_of2009 Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur. Smt. Meera Devi Agrawal, W/o Mahesh Kumar Agrawa!, Sadar Bazar, Dhamtari. Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Standing Counsel for the appellant. Shri Neeiabh Dubey, counsel for the respondent. QRAS^ORDER (Passed on27B'January, 2010) o PerDhirendra Mishra. J The instant appeal preferred by the appellant/revenue under Section 260A of the income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Biiaspur Bench, Camp at Raipur (in short "Tribunal") has been admitted on the following substantial question of law: "Whether in the facts and drcumstances of the case. ffte Sncome Tax Appellaie Tribunal was justified sn !aw, in quashing the orcfer passec? uncfer Sectton 263 and in hotding that fhe assessmenf wder was not erroneous and prejudtcia! to tha interest of revenue though proper and adequate inquiry w/as not macte by the Assessing Officer before passing assessment order?" 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee had shown income frorn Long Term Capital Gain exceeding Rs. 2 lacs and claimed exemption under Section .10(38) of the Act for the assessment year 2004-05. The Assessing Officer (in short "AO") completed assessment under Section 143(3) ofthfe Act. 3. Learned Commissioner, Incorne Tax (in short "CIT") exercising powers under Section 263 of the Act noticed that the AO has compieted assessment without proper and 'adequate enquiry, which was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, and therefore, set aside the said order under Section 263 for making fresh assessment after conducting proper enquiry. The assessee aggrieved by the order of the CIT, preferred appeal before the Tribunai. Learned Tribunal ailowed the appeal by the impugned order with a finding that learned CIT was not justified in holding that the AO ailowed exemption under Section 10(38) of the Act without making proper enquiries, and further heid that the order of the AO cannot be heid to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and the present case was not fit for invoking provisions of Section 263 of the Act. Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant/revenue, on instructlons from the department, before entering into merits of the case, fairly submits that even if the order passed by learned CIT under Section 263 is upheld, tax effect invoived in this appeal is less than the minimum monetary timit of Rs.4 lac as fixed by the Central Board of Dlrect Taxes vide its instructions No.5/08 dated 15.5.2008, according to which for preferring appeal before the High Court, the minimum tax effect has been fixed at Rs.4 lacs. Heard learned counse! for the parties. The Central Board of Direct Taxes (in short "the Board") issues instructions to the income-tax authorities by way of issuing circulars from time to time. The Board, vide tnstruction No.5/08 dated 15.5.2008, in supersession of the earlier instructions, instructed the income-tax authorities regarding the monetary limits and conditions t'or fiting departmental appeais before the Appeilate Tribunals, High Courts and Supreme Court. instruction No.3 deais with the monetary limits, Instruction No.4 defines the tax effect. whereas Instruetions No. 8 & 9 mention the conditions, in which adverse judgments are to be contested irrespective of the tax effect. As per above instructions, for filing appeal before the High Court, the minimum monetary iimit has been fixed at Rs.4 lacs. Thus, in view of the iatest instrucSion dated 15.5.2008 and Section 268A of the Act, we do not deem it necessary to go into the merlts of the case. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for having libie tax effect. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge R.N. Chandrakar Jud.ge