Taxc/8/2007 Of Income Tax Officer, Jagdalpur v. Surendra Kumar Kataria, Bastar

/Tcw,\cagggnaw: 70w abppwk?W[20G] awn-7w aafmw) NG’Oab9‘ kmmHIGH gOURT OF GHHARTTISGARH AT BILASPURComm:-Horu’hle 3hfi Bhh’endfa Mishra &H‘on’iale Shri R.N. ChandrakggggTax Case Income Tax Appeal No.08/2007AnnenantIncome Tax Officer. JagdalpurVersusRespondentSurendra Kumar Kataria,Proprietor,M/s.GauravTraders,MainRoad,Keshkai, District Bastar (CG)Tax Case Income Tax Ai: neal under Section 260-A of incomeTax Act 19E!Present:Shri S. Raies hwar Rao, counsei for the appeiiant.lbrai Order(Passed[on][ 4‘?][ of][ August:][ 2009)]Per Dhirendra Mishra: J:-Heard on LA. No.1, appiication for taking documents on record. LA. No.1, appiication for taking documents on record. No.1, appiication for taking documents on record. appiication for taking documents on record. for taking documents on record. taking documents on record. documents on record. on record. record.(2)Considered and aiiowed.Documents are taken on record. Heard on LA. No.1, appiication for taking documents on record. LA. No.1, appiication for taking documents on record. No.1, appiication for taking documents on record. appiication for taking documents on record. for taking documents on record. taking documents on record. documents on record. on record. record. (3)Aiso heard on admission. (4)The appellant/Revenue hae preferred this appeal under Section‘Act’_)260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961(for[short][ the] against the orderof the income Tax Appeiiate Tribunal,(for[short][ the][ ‘Tribunai‘),Nagpur]on the substantia! question of law as proposed in the memo of appeals ..,._.‘_>,LN.,m_...\l»t.. i-i XI FC—78 WWWWW TAHOOK/0’)m[200] [cwccqe WW MW<WQ EWmwfgmmAg aa:a:fémané¥r a (5)Briefiy stated, the fats of the case are that the Assessing Officercomp!etedassessmentunferSection147/144onatotalincomeofRs63,513/—. The appeal prferred by the assesses was firstly dismissedby the CIT (Appeals) andhereafter by theTribunal.The AssessingOfficer also initiated proceings for levying penalty under Section 271(1)(b)[and][ 271](1)(c)[and]evied penalty of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.4,653/-respectivelyTheassessepreferredappealagainsttheorderoflevying penalty also.Howver,this appeal was also dismissed by theCIT(Appeals).Beingagrievedby theorderofCl‘l‘ (Appeals),theassessespreferredappealbeforetheTribunal.TheTribunalpartlyallowedtheappealagainst thequantumandpenaltyleviedunderSection 271(1)(c)[of][ the ]Act[and]restored the matter to the file of’theCIT (Appeals) for considerion of meritsHowever, the appeal againstthelevyingofpentaltvunderSection271(1)(b)oftheActwasdismissed i (6)Before enteringinto-the merits of the case, Shri S.RajeshwaraRao,learnedcounselfor the appellant/Revenue submitsthat the taxeffect involvedin this appealis only Rs.4,653/— whichisless than theminimum monetary limit of Rs.4,00,000/— fixed for filing appeal before theHigh Court as per Instruction Noi279 dated 24.10.2005 with effect from31.10.2005 of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (for short the Board).HefurthersubmitsthatnoexceptionsasenumeratedinlnstruotionNo.279 exist in the present case for relaxing the minimum monetary limitfor the purposes of filing appeal before the High Court. (7)inViewof thesubmissionmadebylearnedcounselfortheappellanthaving regard to theInstruction No.279 dated 24.10.2005 ofthe Board wherein the minimum monetary limit for ming appealbefore.,t.aW,..M..WW>Iwwwusagwww(‘mv‘t‘d[—~3] Wumw Priya. , l’9 (Gael joCo‘ALTQm WPQQ[“(rowo]1 TCAK W {mm M ‘%mm9"}9"} the High Court at the re‘e\iant time[has]been[ fixed][ at]Rs.4,00,DOO/—[and]considering the negligibletax effect involvedin this appeal, we do notdeemit necessary to gonto the meritsof the case.Accordingly, wedismiss the appeal havingnegligible tax effect. (8)Accordingly)theappealisdisposedofwiththeaforesaidobservation. K,[u] ' Sd/- Sdl—Dhirendra[Mishra]‘Judge R.N. ChandrakarJudge i r