Taxc/17/2009 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax,Raipur v. Prahlad Rai Agrawal

HON'BLE SHR! R.N. CHANDRAKAR. JJ TaxC&seNQ.17of;Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur. (Kevenue) (Assesseel Prahlad Rai Agrawai, S/'o Sunderiai Agrawai, NearTelephone Exchange Bastar Road, Dhamtari. Fresem: Shri Raieev Shrivasiava, Standing Counsel ror the appeiiant.Sh" Nss'abh Dubsy, counse! for the respondent. AL ORDER{pgacc9d cn 27m J^nu^r1/. 2010) fer Dtiirenwa Mishra. J The instant appeai preferred by the appeilant/revenue under Section260A of the income Tax Act, 1961 i'in short["the]Act") against the orderof the income Tax Appeiiate Tnbunai, Biiaspur Bersch, Camp at Raipuriin short "Tribunai'") has been admitted on the foiiowing substantialquestion ot law: "Wttetner in rr/e i'acis ana circumsiances oi tlie case,tk^ fn^onj^ Tsix A^^s'iists Tnbt'ns'f wss f'j'stfHffci ^n •lsw.in quashing Sie Oi'dei' passed undsi' Seciion 263 and inhofrifrl€s ihat th^ Bs$tA-3^m£int ofc^f ws^.s not £inv^n€ous^nCt ps^sJCfsCictf ^O 'U'sS IHi&^SSt 07 svV&iiUS IHGUQn p^Opasand adequate inQuiiy was noi made by tne Assesssng*^e/^-^ tvri:iM11v r fi'1"^~-^^- ^uj'r\^-'"-f ::^J r^r .H ; .r''t.:yS I \^- S ^—:^r/J/ 2. Brieriy staieo, racis of tne case are inat the assessee nad shownincorne irom Long i.erm i^apitai yain exceeding Ks. ^ lacs and ciaimedexempiion uncier aec'uon 'lu(,.ii3i o'i' tne Ac't i'or tne assessment yeai"2005-06. The Assessing OffiCSt' (in short "AO") cuinpleied assessmentuncier oection 14oiy) oi ine Hct. Learned i-urnniissioner, jrifcorn® i ax (in snon: "iJi i j exercising povi/ersunder aecuon 2o3 ot ine Act nonced that the AO nas compieteaassessrnentwiinoutproperanaaaequaieenauiry,wnicnwasironeous and preiuaiciat to ine interest o'f trte revenue, ana ineretore,. setasideinesaidorderunderSection263formakingfreshassessrnent aiter conauciing proper enquiry. ^. Y\ The assessee aggrieved by the order of ihe CIT, preferred appeaibefbre ihe Tfibunai.LearnedTribunai aiiowed the appeaiby theimpugned order with a flnding that ieai'ned CIT was not jusiified inhoidinfl tnat the AO aiiowed' exemption under Section i0(38) or the Actwiihout making proper enquiries, and furi:her heid that the order of theAO cannot be held to be erroneous or prejudiciai to the interest of therevenue and ihe present case was not fit for invoking provisions ofoecuon <:oj or tne ACI. 3hri Rajeev Shrivastava, iearned counsei for tne appeiianu'revenue, oninstructions from the department, before entering into merits or tnecase, fairiy submits that even if the order passed by ieamed-CiT underSection 263 is upheld, tax efrect invoived in this appeal is iess than tnern.nimum moneiary iirnrt or Ks.4 lac as uxea &y' ine uentrai Boara orDirect Taxes vide its instruciions HoS/Go dated 15.5.2008, according towhich for preferring appeai before the High Court, the minimum taxefrect has been fixed at Rs.4 iacs. Meard iearned counsei tor the oarties. The Centrai Board of Direct Taxes(in short "the Board") issuesinsu-uctions .to the income-tax autnoniies by way or issutng cireuiarsfrom time to time. The Boai'd, vide instruction No.5/08 dated 15.5.2008,in supersession of the eariier instructions, insti'ucted the income-taxauthoritiesregarding the monetaiy iimlts and conaitions for nlingdepartmeniai appeais before i.he Appeiiate Tribunais, High Courts andSuoremeCourt.InstruciionNo.3deais withthernonetaryiimits,insiruction No.4 defines the tax eftect, whereas instructions No. 8 & amention the conditions, in which adverse judgments are to be coniestedirt'espective of the tax effect. As per above instt'uctions, for nling appeaibefore tne High Court, the! minimum monetary iimit has been tixed atRs.4 iacs.Thus, in view of the iatest instruction dated 15.5.2008 andSection 268A of the Act, we do not deem it necessary to 90 into themerits of the case.Accofdinyiy, the appeai is uismissed for having—"negligibie tax effect.