- (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties and perused the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It is contended therein that vide Circular of CBDT dt. 27th March, 2000 to the effect that if revenue involved is not more than Rs. two lacs, no appeal shall be preferred to the High Court, therefore, the appeal was not filed. However, since the judgment of Tribunal impugned in the present appeal, was taken as a precedent in other matters involving heavy revenue, and those matters have been challenged before the Court and, therefore, it was decided to file present appeal.
(2.) IN our view, the fact remains that revenue involved in the present matter is less than the amount prescribed by the circular. In that view of the matter, simply because at a belated hour Department has taken decision to file the appeal, it cannot be said that it furnishes any sufficient ground to the appellant to seek condonation of delay. Thus, it cannot be said that the appellant was prevented by any sufficient cause from filing the appeal within time. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is, therefore, dismissed and consequently the appeal is also dismissed. While dismissing the appeal as well as application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act we make it clear that decision of Tribunal impugned in the present appeal shall not be taken as a precedent deciding the particular question of law in other cases as that question has already been raised before the Court.
(3.) WITH the above clarification, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as well as the appeal are dismissed.;