COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,RAIPUR vs. MAKHAN LAL GUPTA, DHAMTARI

‘ \ ' x a _ « v . v ‘ ‘swr-ahby’ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARHJ I. T. A. N0. . OF 2003 Qéh?” 39m§ ' Commissioner, Income Tax, Raipur (0G) PPELLANT VERSUS 'ESPONDENTgw i Shri Makhan Lal Gupta (v ..’ wgae. Proprletor M/ s Kanchan '. §".. é& . Metal Industries, Gokul Pur ward, Dhamtari Dhamtari {Chhattisgarh} 2i J a” V APPEAL UNDER SECTION 260A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1 BeinLaQyriex m&,J~—/—A—‘ ’ W _l>#, , s / / . V ' Cug § 196. ,méwm @(o m we; $WWWw fmWm amimm HIGH COUR”? OF CHHARTTISGAI 1;:oram:- iH AT BILASPUR dra Mishra & W r3 )ner Hon’ble Shri Dhiren Hcn’ble $I1ri R N Ct I.T.A No.71lzoc Commissk \nnellant §esnondent of Income Tax, Versus Shri Makh n Lai Gupta, Proprietor industries, (CG) Almeal under Section 269-A of lncéme Tax Act. 1961 v n M/s Kanehan Metal , oku! Pur War, Dhamtari a t; Raipur(CC§) M n Versus esnondent Shri Mak an La! Gupta Dhamtari (CG) I.T.A No.90i20 iggpellant Commissi ner of moome Tax, Raipur(C ) Versus Respondent Shri Makh n La! Gupta, Proprietor M/s Kanchan Meta't‘ industries, okui ifurtfgar, Dhamtari (CG) I.T.A No.91I20 ppeliant Commissi er of income Tax; Raipur(C )

Tim W WWW 64K . TTP 31/ WW W 200$ N Shri GN‘ Purohit, Senior Advocate with Shri Anand Dadariya, ccunsels for the 'espondent Oral Ordeer (Passed on 8th‘" of July, 2009) wPer Dhirendra Mishra, J:~ [.T.A. Nos.71 /2003, 90/2003, and 91/2003 are being disposed of bv a Gammon order as these appeals are irected against the order dated 12052003 passed by the income Tax A' peiiate Tribunai (henceforth the ‘Tribunai’). whereby three separate ap‘ eals filed by the reepondent/ assessee have been aliowed bv the Tri unai and the order of ihe CIT (Appeals) has been set aside. For the pu poses of this order, reference is made to the facts of l.T.A. No.71 [2003 i 1(2) Briefly stated, the facts of the ase are that the respondeht/ assessee is engaged in the business of rass gensfs The respondent! assessee had let out a part of the factory premises on lease and the rent received in respect of the factory premis s was declared as income from bustness in the returns med for all the ssessment years. The returns iwere adoepted under the provisions of S ction 143 (1 (a) However in :the assessments under Section 147 of the Act for the relevant lassessment years the income was treated as income from the house *prooeitv t in place of income from business claimed bv the assessee The ‘assessee t preferred an appeal before the CIT (Appeals) The appeai of the assessee was dismissed by the CIT (Appeals) However the Tribunal allowmo the appeal of the assessee has set aside the orders of (the glT (Appeals) as well as the Assessmg Officer. r Kg 37%? W i K ‘5 H d?" v m g ’I‘ W ,ITW ; W21? afga A?! a: a; W 37m: “*’ T ; Present: Shri S. Rajeshwar Rao, counsel forthe appeiiant.

K$ 33:4.Q1E Q, BE J31 «c‘ Fla Enqq mm ? .A../ @i mo WETWww V: i mWm‘?%‘F€€TW 73 — %: W 311% f ! l (3) Shri GN. Purohit: 1eamed Se ior Advocate for the respondent at invoived in ail these three appeals is iess thanthe monetary Iimit of RS2. 0,000/— fixed bythe Centra! Board of Direct Taxes (henceforth the ‘Boa ) vide its Instruction No1979 dated 27‘032000, wherein it is provided th t minimum monetary limit for ming an appeal before the High Court is Rs 2:O0,000I-. the out set submitted that the tax eff counsel for the appellant submits that the tax effect in all these three a peals is to the tune of Rs.57,837/—1 Rs.10,120/: and Rs.47,356/- in the a sessment years 199495, 1997~98 and 1996—97 respectively. Thus, the otal tax effect involved in aii these three appeals is Rsr1,15,3‘l3/-, which is less than the minimum monetary limit nxed by the Board. (4) Shri S. Rajeshwar Rao‘ learn (6) Having heard learned counset or the parties, having regard to the instruction No.1979 dated 27.03200 of the Board/wherein the minimum monetary limit for tiling appeal before the High Court at the relevant time has been fixed at Rs.2,00,000/— and onsidering the negligible tax effect of all these three appeals. we do no deem it necessary to go into the Pdya g e r ’ merits of the case. Accordingly, W dismiss all these appeals having nediigible tax effect. i Sd/— \ Dhirendra Mishra R.N. Chandrakar Judge .u i Judge