Commissioner Of Income Tax , Muzaffarpur v. Sardar Harjeet Singh, Bara Bazar, Madhubani

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNAMiscellaneous Appeal No.237 of 2007 ====================================================== Commissioner of Income Tax , Muzaffarpur .... .... Appellant Versus Sardar Harjeet Singh, Bara Bazar, Madhubani .... .... Respondent ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mrs. Archana Sinha, Sr. Standing Counsel, Income Tax ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA and HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA) ---------- 5 17-11-2014 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The appeal has been filed against the order dated 6.2.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna by which the appeal filed by the respondent along with three other appeals filed by similarly situated persons have been allowed. It is pointed out that the appeal is valued at Rs. 1,41,293/-. As per Instruction No. 2 dated 24.10.2005 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes no appeal should be filed under Section 260A before the High Court unless the tax effect of the order exceeds the monetary limit of Rupees Four Lacs, which as amended by the Instruction No. 05/2007 further says that the Board has also decided that cases where the question of law involved or raised in appeal is / are of a recurring nature to be decided by the Court, should be separately considered on merits without being hindered by the monetary limits. It is evident from a bare reading of the order of the Tribunal that the issue is related to clubbing of income of the appellant as also three other appeals before it with the case of one Sardar Veerendra Singh who was the father and uncle of the appellants before the ITAT, and whose incomes were assessed in the hands of the said Sardar Veerendra Singh and the said appeal was allowed by giving findings of fact against the revenue. Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to show as to how any question of law is at all involved in the present matter. In the said circumstances, the case is clearly covered by Instruction No. 2 dated 24.10.2005 of the CBDT and the revenue is bound by the said instruction and ought not to have filed the present appeal. The appeal, is accordingly, dismissed. (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J) N.H./ Spd/- (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J) U