Judgment :- K. Raviraja Pandian, J. The revenue is on appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras A Bench, dated 04.03.2005 in ITA No.1038/Mds/2003. 2. The facts of this case are as follows : The return filed by the assessee Co.operative Bank for the assessment year 1998-99 was processed u/s 143(1)(a) on 2. 1999. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer noticed that interest granted u/s 244A amount to Rs.47,151/- for the assessment year 1996-97 during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1998-99 was omitted to be taxed. Since there was a mistake apparent from records, notice u/s 154 was issued to the assessee. In reply, the assessee contended that since the assessee is a Co.operative Society, engaged in the business of banking, the entire interest income was exempt u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim since u/s 244A was not derived form the business of banking. Aggrieved by that order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority, who citing the decision in 255 ITR 423 deleted the addition of Rs.47,151/-. That order of the first appellate authority has been taken on appeal by the revenue before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by the order impugned observing that the circular applied to the instant case and also there was no exceptional circumstances specified in the circular, following the decision of this Court in 258 ITR 675, dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present appeal by the revenue questioning the correctness of the order passed by the Tribunal. 3. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in dismissing the appeal filed by the revenue on the ground that the tax effect was less than the monetary limit prescribed in the Boards Circular dated 27.03.2000 without considering the fact that it was only an internal instruction and was not to be taken into consideration by the Tribunal while dealing with an appeal filed u/s 253 of the Income Tax Act, as held by several High Courts?". 4. When the matter is taken up for orders, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee submitted that the tax effect in the present case is Rs.12,503/-. 4. When the matter is taken up for orders, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee submitted that the tax effect in the present case is Rs.12,503/-. As per the circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes in F.No.279/126/98ITJ dated March 27, 2000, the monetary limit prescribed for filing an appeal by the revenue is Rs.2.00 lakhs, however, with certain exceptions. The exceptions are not applicable to the facts of the present case and admittedly, the tax effect in this case is lesser than the monetary limit prescribed in the said circular. Hence, it would not be proper on the part of the revenue to file an appeal, which is against its own circular. 5. It may be noted that this Court considered a similar issue in the case of CIT v. Associated Electrical Agencies, (2007) 295 ITR 496, wherein this Court held as follows : "We are of the considered view that none of the exceptions stated in the circular are applicable to the facts of the present case. The circular was stated to be issued by invoking the statutory power under Section 119 of the Income-tax Act. The appeal is filed under Section 260-A of the Income-tax Act. It is well settled principle of law that each and every provision of a statute has to be given the same importance. One provision cannot be alleviated to a higher pedestal than the other provision, of course, unless or otherwise specifically stated either in the scheme, the Act or in the provision itself that a particular provision is subjected to or qualified by any other provision or the provision can be given effect to notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions by assigning overriding effect. Hence, the contention that notwithstanding the circular, which was issued under Section 119 of the Income-tax Act, the appeal could be filed by the revenue under Section 260-A has to be rejected for the reason that if the contention is accepted, one of the Section would become virtually otiose and that cannot be the intention of the law makers. Thus, following the long line of case laws reported in 258 ITR 300 (Commissioner Of Income-Tax Vs. Rajasthan Patrika Limited), 261 ITR 406 (Commissioner Of Income-Tax Vs. P.S.T.S. Thiruvirathnam And Sons), to which one of us is a party (K.Raviraja Pandian,J.), 292 ITR 314 (Commissioner Of Income-Tax Vs. Thus, following the long line of case laws reported in 258 ITR 300 (Commissioner Of Income-Tax Vs. Rajasthan Patrika Limited), 261 ITR 406 (Commissioner Of Income-Tax Vs. P.S.T.S. Thiruvirathnam And Sons), to which one of us is a party (K.Raviraja Pandian,J.), 292 ITR 314 (Commissioner Of Income-Tax Vs. Digvijay Singh) and 254 ITR 565 (Commissioner Of Income-Tax Vs. Camco Colour Co.), this Court held that the uniform line of judicial opinion is that if the tax effect is less than what is stated in the circular, the Revenue need not agitate the issue on appeal and that the circular is binding on the Revenue." The said judgment of this Court in the case of Associated Electricals Agencies, (2007) 295 ITR 496 has been relied by the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Concord Pharmaceuticals, (2008) 220 CTR 117 to reject the appeal of the revenue where the tax effect is less than Rs.2.00 lakhs. The apex Court in the case of State of Kerala v. Kurian Abraham (P) Ltd., (2008) 3 SCC 582 has laid down that the circular issued by the CBDT is much binding on the revenue and that requires no support of judicial precedent. 6. Learned counsel for the revenue fairly admitted that the tax effect is less than Rs.2.00 lakhs, the limit prescribed under the above said Circular dated 27.03.2000. The appeal is filed on 212. 2005. Hence, the circular is binding on the revenue. The appeal is dismissed. No costs.