ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. GYAN CHAND PAREKH

Qfi mm mmm WWdmtm $§ma®¥i Shri Gyan Durg. Shri S. Rajeshwara Rao, learn: Heard. The appellant/revenue has pi'e erred this appeal under Section 260A of the income Tax Act, 1961 against th impugned order (Annexure A/3) passed by the Income Tax Appeliate Tribunal Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, on the following substantial ‘questions of law: "(i) Whether on factsand in the ci umstances of the case the Tribunal was justifled in deleting the additi n made towards levy of surcharge as provided in second provision fsection 2(8) of Finance Act, 1999 and thereby canceling the rectific tory order passed under section 154 of the income-tax Act. (ii) ‘ Whether on the facts and n the circumstances of the case, the conclusion ISHRA, & ‘ HON’BLE SHRI R.N. CHANDRAKAR, JJ 3 3012007 Appellant Versus Respondent 30.6.2009: D.B. HON’BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA M m 2w mamm (We?) are vitiated by tribunal reached by th considerations or made from p ejudice. (iii) Whether on the facts and in t e circumstances of the case the order by not based on any reliable and legally irrelevant the Tribunal is illegal and w acceptable evidence." l l l l lisms—A 1 /2003 1,00,000. Assistant Cc mmissioner of income-tax, Tax Circle 2, Bhilai. Chand Parekh, 67’, Mahaveer Colony, id counsel for the appellant.

!4mMm a; Wm .V W 2c0 WW(W§I) ‘ mm Hm war 2, anewétmm?§amatmmwforthe ‘ mock period was passed under ection 158 BC (c) of the ‘income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) etermining total undisclosed income at R$.40.86,000/-, The Assessin Officer levied surcharge @ 10% Le. Rs.2,45,160/- under Section 154 of the Act. On appeal by the assessee, the aforesaid surcharge was deieted Furtherappeai preferred by the department was again dismissed by upholdin the order of teamed CIT (Appeals). Before entering into the erits 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 per Circular No.279 dated 24.10 2005, is Rs. 4 lacs, and the present appeal 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, keeping in view ithe law laid down by this Court in M/s Venkateshwar [spat Udyog (supra) and also considering the tax effect in the present appeal, which is less than the monetary limit prescribed by Central 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 this %ai?%maar%¥r .nmwas‘. ., appeal having negligible tax effect. ./ / /"’#i A fr iii i iih, / l, Sd/L Dhirendra Mlshra l . R.N. Chandrakar Judge ‘ Judge