Income Tax Officer, Korba v. Shrisukhdeoprasadsahu,Balconagar, Korba

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DB:Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra &Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar. JJ.Tax Case No. 5 of 2011 Appellant .Income Tax Officer, Korba Vs. Respondent ShriSukhdeoPrasadSahu,BalcoNagar, Korba Appeal under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act. 1961 Present: Shri Rajeev Shrivastava with Shri Sameer Shrivastava,counsel for the appellant. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 10th March, 2011) Per Dhirendra Mishra. J Heard. (1)This tax appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961(henceforth the 'Act') is directed against the order passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunai, Nagpur, and the same has beenpreferred on the substantial questions of law as enumerated in thememo of appeal.(henceforth the 'Act') is directed against the order passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunai, Nagpur, and the same has beenpreferred on the substantial questions of law as enumerated in thememo of appeal. (2)Briefiy stated facts of the case as projected in the memo ofappealare that therespondent filedreturn of income forAssessment Year 2003-04 dectaring taxable income of Rs.1,17,650/-.On scrutiny under Section 143(2) of the Act, theAssessing Officer ailowed exemption to the tune of Rs. 1 ,23,077/-in accordance with Section 10 (10 C) of the Act, which wasactualiy received by the respondent and rejected the claim of Rs.5,00,000/-andtherebyaddedex-gratiapaymentof ciaimexempted to the income of the assessee and the appealpreferred by the assessee before the Commissioner of income .^•^^^i ^»1I.'%. ":w^l 1 ^^/'%^^ Vijay ^T Tax (Appeais) was dismissed. However, the appeal preferred bythe assessee was allowed bythe Tribunal by the impugned order,hence, this appeal. Beforeenteringintothemeritsof thecase,ShriRajeevShrivastava and Shri Sameer Shrivastava, learned counsel forthe appellant fairiy submits that tax effect involved in this appealisRs.1,72,065/-,whichis less thanmonetary limit ofRs.4,00,000/- fixed by the Centra! Board of Direct Taxes (henceforththe 'Board') vide instruction No. 5/2008 dated 15.05.2010 for filingappeal before the High Court. (3) in view of the aforesaid submissions of the tearned counse! forthe appeilant and considering negligible tax effect invoived in thisappeal, which is less than minimum monetary iimit fixed by theBoard for filing an appeai before this High Court, we do not deemit necessary to go into the merits of the case and we dismiss thisappeai having negligible tax effect. (4) Sd/-R.N. ChandrakarJudge Sd/-Dhirendra MishraJudge