Taxc/30/2007 Of Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Gyan Chand Parekh

m[2w] mm mamm (We?) l[isms—A][ 1][ /2003] 1,00,000. .nmwas‘. ., .V Wm W[2c0] ‘ WW(W§I) mm Hm[war]2,%ai?%maar%¥ranew[étmm?§amatmmwforthe]mock period[was]passed[under]ection 158 (c)of the[‘income][ Tax][ Act,]1961(inshort“theAct”)eterminingtotalundisclosedincomeatR$.40.86,000/-,TheAssessinOfficerleviedsurcharge@10%Le.On appeal by[the][ assessee,][ the]Rs.2,45,160/-[under][ Section][ 154][ of][ the][ Act.]aforesaid surcharge[was][ deieted]Furtherappeai preferred[by][ the][ department]was again dismissed[by][ upholdin]the order of teamed (Appeals). !4mMm ‘ ‘Before enteringinto theerits of the[case,][ learned][ counsel][ appearing]for the appellant fairly[submits][ th][ tthe][ tax][ effect][ involved][ inthis][ appeal][ is][ only]Rs.2,45,160/-,[whereas][ moneta]limit for tiling[appeal]in the High[Court,][ as]is Rs. 4 lacs,[and][ the]present[appeal]per[Circular][ No.279][ dated][ 24.10 2005,]does not[fall] within[any][ of][ the][ ex][ eptions][ enumerated][ in][ the][ aforesaid][ circular]and the instant[matter][ is][ covere]by the order[dated][ 9‘"][ April,][ 2009]passed[by]this Court in[l.T,A.No.]155/99,irli the matter[of][ the][ Commissioner][ of][ Income]Tax, Raipur Vs.[M/s][ Venkateshw‘][ rlspat][ Udyog,][ Industrial][ Area,][ Urla,][ Raipur.]Thus,keepinginviewlawlaiddownbythisCourtinM/s‘itheVenkateshwar [spat[Udyog](supra)[and][ also][ considering][ the tax][ effect][ in][ the]isless than the monetarylimit prescribed[by][ Central]present[appeal,][ which]Board of Direct[Taxes][ for][ filing][ appeal][ before the][ High][ Court,][ we][ do][ not][ deem]\F/Aibnecessaryto go into the merits of this case. Accordingly, we dismiss thisappeal having negligible[tax][ effect.]/[[ A]]fr[iii][ i][ iih,] ./[/][ /"’#i][[ A]] Sd/-l,.lDhirendra[Mlshra]‘Judge Sd/LR.N. ChandrakarJudge