Taxc/14/2009 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax,Raipur v. Smt.manisha Rohra

li HZGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH AT BILASPUit Commlssioner of Income-Tax, Raipur (Revenue; Smt. Manisha Rohra Alias Sulochana,W/o Anil Kumar Rohra, Sunder Ganj Ward, f't. Shri Rajeev Shrivastava and Smt. Shradha P.ao, counsel forthe appeliant/revenue.Shri Neelabh Dubey, counse! for the respondent/assessee. Vf The appeliant/revenue has preferred this appea! under Sectlon260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") againstthe impugned order passedby the Income Tax AppeifateTribunal, Biiaspur (in short "the Tribunal") on the foliowinssubstantiai questions of law: "01.Whether in the facts and drcumstances ofthe case, the ITAT wasjustified in taw, inquashing the order passed u/s. 263 andin hofding that the assessment order wasnoterroneousandprejudicialtotheinterest of revenue though pmper andadequate inqu'iry was not made by theA.O. before passing assessment order. " WhethertheITATwasjustifiedinquashing the order u/s 263 by holdingthat relevant papers were ca'iled for bythe AO and were filed by the respondentand it constituted proper enquiry of theO'S'/T? ofexemption clairried u/s 10(38)." 02. 02. Briefly stated, facts ofthe case, as projected in the impugned,order, are that the assessment was compieted under Section 143(3)of theActon23.1.2007onatotalincomeofRs.1,05,260/- against the returned income of Rs.85,260/- bymaking routine dlsallowances.Later on, it was discovered bythe Commissloner that the assessee has shown an income ofRs.1,05,260/- against the returned income of Rs.85,260/- bymaking routine dlsallowances.Later on, it was discovered bythe Commissloner that the assessee has shown an income ofR.S.2lacunder thehead "Long TermCapitalGain" andclaimed exemption under Section 10(38) of the Act. LearnedCommissionsr, Income Tax (in short "CIT") In his order underSection 263 of the Act he!d the said assessment erroneousmd prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as he found thatthe AO has accepted the claim of the assessee wlthout properveriflcation and investigation ofthefacts.claimed exemption under Section 10(38) of the Act. LearnedCommissionsr, Income Tax (in short "CIT") In his order underSection 263 of the Act he!d the said assessment erroneousmd prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as he found thatthe AO has accepted the claim of the assessee wlthout properveriflcation and investigation ofthefacts. The assessee, aggrieved by the order of iearned CIT, preferredappealbefore the Tribuna!.Learned Tribunalailowedtheappeai by the impugned order i/vith a finding that tearned CITvvas not justified in hoiding that the AO aliowed exemptionunder Section 10(38) without making proper enquiries, andfurther held that the. order of the AO cannot be held to beerroneous or prejudidai to the interest ofthe revenue and the>resent case was not flt for invoklng provisions of Section 263of the Act, ShriRajaevShrivastava,learnedcounselfortheippeiianfrevenue, before entering into merits of the case,fairiy submlts that even if She order passed by learned CITunder Section 263 Is upheld, tax effect involved In this appealis less than the minimum monetary iimit of Rs. 4 lac as fixedby the Centra!Board of Direct Taxes vide its InstructionsNo.5/08 dated 15.5.2008, according to which for preferringappeai before the High Court, the minimum tax effect hasbeen flxed at Rs.4 lacs., Heard iearned counsel for the parties. The Central B(oard of Direct Taxes (in short "the Board") issuesinstructions tothe income-tax authoritles by way of Issuingcircuiarsfromtlme totlme.TheBoard,vldeInstructionNo.5/2008da-ted15.5.2008,Insupersession of the earlier ^3^<r^^,!^s^.%.<!fe»-."i<r ^<^ tl-,,.,rl::- ShriRajaevShrivastava,learnedcounselfortheippeiianfrevenue, before entering into merits of the case,fairiy submlts that even if She order passed by learned CITunder Section 263 Is upheld, tax effect involved In this appealis less than the minimum monetary iimit of Rs. 4 lac as fixedby the Centra!Board of Direct Taxes vide its InstructionsNo.5/08 dated 15.5.2008, according to which for preferringappeai before the High Court, the minimum tax effect hasbeen flxed at Rs.4 lacs., Heard iearned counsel for the parties. The Central B(oard of Direct Taxes (in short "the Board") issuesinstructions tothe income-tax authoritles by way of Issuingcircuiarsfromtlme totlme.TheBoard,vldeInstructionNo.5/2008da-ted15.5.2008,Insupersession of the earlier ^3^<r^^,!^s^.%.<!fe»-."i<r ^<^ tl-,,.,rl::- Instructions, Instruc'ted the income-tax authorities regardingthe monetary iimlts and conditions for filing departmentalippeaisbeforethe Appellate Tribunals,HighCourtsandSupreme Court. InstructionNo.3 deals with the monetaryimits,InstructionNo.4definesthetaxeffect,whereasInstructionsNo.8& 9mentionthe conditlons,in whichiverse judgments are to be contested irrespective of the taxeffect. As per above instructions, for filing appeal before theHigh Court, the minimum monetary limit has been fixed atRs.4lacs.Thus,Inviewof thelatest Instructiondated15.5.2008 and Section 268A of the income Tax Act, we do notdeemitnecessarytogointothemeritsof thecase.Accordingiy, the appea! is dismissed for having negligible tax'ffect,"> Sd/-DhirendraMishraJudge Sdl-R.N. Chandrakar3udge -/"