1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2278 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax – II, Pune ..Appellant. Versus Late Shri haribhau Krishnaji Galande, Pune ..Respondent. Mr.Vimal Gupta for the appellant. Dr.K. Shivram with Mr.Ajay R. Singh for the respondent. CORAM : Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud & J.P. Devadhar, JJ. DATE : 15th Ferbuary, 2010. P.C. : 1. From the averments contained in Paragraph 11 of the memo of Appeal filed by the Revenue, it is evident that the tax effect, even according to the Revenue is less than Rs.4,00,000/-. The averment in paragraph 11 however is that the appeal has been filed since the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is a composite order in nine cases of the same family. The expression ‘composite order’ has been construed in the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Polycott Corporation,1 to mean an order in respect of the same assessee for more than one year. In the present case admittedly 1 (2009) 178 Taxman 255 2 the order of the Tribunal was not a composite order as explained by the Division Bench as different assessees are involved. In the case of the assessee, only one year is in issue. 2. Since the tax effect is less than Rs.4,00,000/-, in view of Instruction No.5 of 2008 dated 15th May 2008 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, the Appeal is dismissed. There shall be refund of court fee, if any as per Rules. (J.P. Devadhar, J.) (Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud, J.)