COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR vs. M/S PRACHI RESINS PRIVATE LTD.

"T^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR + DB: Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra & Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar. JJ. Income Tax ApBeal No. 45 of 2003 Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur (C.G.) M/s Prachi Resins (P) Ltd., Lunawat Bhawan, Station Road, Raipur (C.G.) Appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 Present: Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, counsel for theappellaTit"' Shri Shashank Dubey, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Smiti Sharma, counsel for the respondent ORAL ORDER (Passedon 22.10.2010) Per Dhirendra Mishra. J Heard. (1) The appellant/Revenue's tax appeal under Sectlon 260-A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (henceforththe 'Act') has been admitted on the followingsubstantial question oflaw:- "I. Whether In law or in the facts of the case, the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribuna! was right in holding that on the basis ofthe materials before the Assessment Officer, no disallowance could have been made by the Assessment Offieer by prima facie adjustment though from the balance sheet filed along with the return, it is clear that the interest due on term loans had not been paid? "2. Whether in facts and in the circumstance of the case, the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in treating that mere delivery of any | llll .'&.

unspecified material into the postal mode would amount to filing or revised return of income? (2) Briefly stated facts of the case as projected from the impugned order are that theassessee filed a return for assessment year 1997-98 by showing a netioss of Rs. 41,41,090/-. The return of the income was processed under Section 143 (1) (a) of the Act and the Assessing Officer disallowed a sum of Rs. 23,27,867/- the amount paid to the bank by way of interest under Section 43-B of the Act and further directed levy additional tax under Section 143 (1) (a) of the Act. (3) The assessee went in an appeal and CIT (A) allowed his appeal. The appeal preferred by the revenue has been dismissed by the Tribunal by the impugned order. : (4) Before entering into the merits of the case, Shri Shashank Dubey, learned Senior Adyocate with Ms. Smiti Sharma, counsel appearing for the assessee raised preliminary objection with respect to maintainability of the appeal on account of no tax effect. It was argued that the insfant appeal has been filed on 04.07.2003 when instruction No. 1979 dated 27.03.2000 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (henceforth the 'Board') was erfdteed and as per the above instruction the minimum monetary limit for filing an appeal before the High Court is Rs. 2,00,000/- whereas, in the instant case, the tax effect involved is Nil as the assessment under Section 143 (1) (a) made at a loss. Reliance is placed on the judgment dated 19.10.2010 ofthis Court passed in I.T.A. No. 94/2000 [Deputv Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/sPatrakar Prakashan Pvt. Ltd.1 (5) Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellanVrevenue does not dispute that in the instant case also the assessment under Section 143 (1) (a) has been made at a toss and the case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the matter of (Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Patrakar Prakashan (6) ln view of the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the parties, thus, considering instruction No. 1979 dated 27.03.2000,

'vljay wherein the minimum monetary limit for filing an appeal before the High Court at the relevant time has been *fixed at Rs. 2,00,000/- and consldering that there is no tax effect in this appeal, we do not deem it necessary to go into the merits of the case. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal having negligible tax effect. ——_—_______ ^^__ Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge