Taxc/32/2008 Of Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri Vinod Banwari Lal Goyal

's^s •^wwf,, wws6, fsi^irey "•^y^eS1s\^^./'^a.V~''•s'^w"tl-HC—78 -T V, fCTRifSff STT^I g>^t}<^ ?i; ^Sf •*fWWi, 8lfll<Hil<a, T^IR?1 Briefly stated, facts of th^ case are that the respondent/assesseederives income by running couri^r service at Raipur.For the relevantussessment year, the Assessing pfficer (AO) completed the assessmentby determining income of the asfsessee at Rs.47,26,501/-.The AO alsoinitiated proeeedings under SectJon 271(l)(c) of the Act and interest wascharged under Sections 234A, 2|34B & 234C of the Act and also leviedpenatty under Section 271(l)(c). The assessee preferred a(^)eal against the order of the AO beforethe Commissioner of Income Tcuj; (Appeals) {for brevity "dT(A)"}.TheCTT(A) allowed the appeal and deleted the interest under Section 234B ofthe Act. The order of the CTT(4) was further confirmed by the Tribunal,hence this appeal.|1 Before entering into the iperits of the case,Shri S.RajeshwaraRao, learned counsel for the app^llant fairly submits that the tax effectinvolved in this appeal is less thar? the monetary limit of Rs.4 hcs, as fixedby the Central Board of Direct Taxes vide Instructions No. 279 dated24October, 2005,for filing appeal in the High Court. No exceptionalcircumstance, as enumerated in'the said Circular, exists in the presentcase for relaxing the minimum mdnetary limit. j !:'I,,"""IB .':kt.. %—XI^HC—78-T-^^ ?"-r^ff^ -.^'-7ST -41<llcfl-s), QTll'M-IS, faidiyy3^rtT5RTCq?tgs^tr)'SW. VI. k'1!<*>li^nw ^ifei ww?t2n SH^T^T^^i'sifOTsii^Taking into considerationtthe fact that the tax effect involved inthe present case is less thom t|ie minimum monetary liinit fixed by theBoard. and keeping in view the ^ircular dated 24October, 2005 issuedby the Board in this regard, wedo not deem it necessar/ to go into themerits of the appeal and we (Rismiss the appeal having negligible taxeffect.-____sdy-Sd/-Dhirendra MishraR.N. ChandrakarJadgeJudge