HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Commissioner of Income-tax
S. Akbar Shah
Tax case appeal No. 706 of 2005
JANUARY 4, 2012
D. Murugesan, J.
The above appeal is filed against the order of the Tribunal, Chennai Bench “B”, made in ITA No. 2299/Mad/1995 dt. 19th Oct., 2004.
2. The appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law :
“1. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the charging of interest under s. 215 of the Income-tax Act, till the date of original assessment under s. 143(1) and not up to the assessment under s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?
2. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that sub-ss. (3) and (6) of s. 215 is not applicable to the facts of this case is valid ?”
3. A perusal of the order of assessment shows that the tax effect is less than two lakhs, i.e. a sum of Rs. 1,35,369. Instruction No. 2 of 2005 dt. 24th Oct., 2005  198 CTR (St) 41] of the circular of the CBDT as well as Circular No. F 279/126/98-ITJ dt. 27th March, 2000, prescribe the monetary limit for filing an appeal by the Revenue to the effect that when the tax effect is less than the limit prescribed by the said circular, an appeal is not liable to be canvassed for consideration on merits. In this regard, we may point out that this Court had considered the effect of the circulars prescribing the monetary limit for filing appeal by the Revenue and rejected the tax cases, in the decisions reported in :
(i) CIT v. Atofina Peroxides India Ltd.  26 DTR (Mad) 346;
(ii) CIT v. Chemplast Sanmar Ltd.  317 ITR 422 (Mad);
(iii) CIT v. S. Sumathi  317 ITR 422 (Mad);
(iv) CIT v. Kodanadu Tea Estate Co.  317 ITR 418(Mad); and
(v) CIT v. M. Arokiam  317 ITR 381 (Mad).
4. As already pointed out, considering the low tax effect in the case on hand and the substantial questions of law of general importance are not established, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.