Appellant(Revenue v. Respondent(Assessee

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Bg:Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra &Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar. JJ. TaxCaseNo. 173 of 2010 Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur(Chhattisgarh) Appellant(Revenue) Vs. Respondent(Assessee) Jai Shankar Vyas, S/o Late ManaklalVyas, Geedam Road, Jagdalpur, Distt.Bastar (C.G.) Appeal under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act. 1961 Present: Shri Rajeev Shrivastava with Shri Sameer Shrivastava,counsel for the appellant/revenue. ORAL ORDER' (Passed on 17th January, 2011) Per Dhirendra Mlshra. J Heard. (1)This revenue tax appeal under Section 260 Chapter-A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (henceforththe'Act') is directedagainst theorder dated 24.11.2008 (Annexure A-3) passed by the (ncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, Bilaspur Bench (Camp at Raipur) andappellant has preferred this appeal on the fotlowing substantialquestion of law:-Income Tax Act, 1961 (henceforththe'Act') is directedagainst theorder dated 24.11.2008 (Annexure A-3) passed by the (ncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, Bilaspur Bench (Camp at Raipur) andappellant has preferred this appeal on the fotlowing substantialquestion of law:- 'Whetheron the facts andin the circumstances of thecase,theHon'ble!TAT was jusWedinconfirming the order of the CIT(A), when suchorder was based on the evidence producedbefore him for the firsttlme, which was admittedby him without complying the requirement of Rule46A of the fncome Tax Rules and without givingconfirming the order of the CIT(A), when suchorder was based on the evidence producedbefore him for the firsttlme, which was admittedby him without complying the requirement of Rule46A of the fncome Tax Rules and without giving Vijay ^I^IiilSIiSllfiiliS'8S8StSS^^^SSSSBiSISBRiil! ^^ any opportunity to the AssessSng OfRcer to rebutor examine the same? Briefly stated facts of the casg as projected in the memo ofappeal are that theAssessing Offlcer after issuing notice underSection 148 ofthe Act, completed the ex-parte assessment underSection 144 ofthe Act on the total income of Rs. 6,97,210/-. Theappeal preferred by the assessee, the CIT (Appeals) allowed theappeal directing the Assessing Officer to take only % of the rentalincome in the hands of the assessee.The appeal preferred bythe revenue has'been further dismissed by the Tribunal by theimpugned order. (2) Before entering into the merits of the case, learned counsel forthe appellant fairly submits that in the instant case the total taxeffect involved is only 2,09,163/-, which is less than monetarylimit of Rs. 4,00,000/- fixed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes'Board')(henceforththevideinstructionNo.5/2008dated15.05.2008 for filing appeal before the High Court. (3) ln view of the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel forthe appellant and considering negligible tax effect involved in thisappeal, which is less than minimum monetary limit fixed by theBoard for filing an appeal before this High Court, we do not deemit necessary to into the merits of the case and we dismiss this goappeal having negligible taxeffect. (4) Sd/-R.N. ChandrakarJudge Sd/-Dhirendra MishraJudge