JUDGMENT By Court-This Tax Appeal is preferred against the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Ranchi dated 08.10.2012 passed in I.T.A. No. 20/Ran/12 deleting the entire addition of Rs.36,78,410/made by the Assessment Officer for the Assessment Year 200809 raising the following questions of law: - (I) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the Case the learned ITAT has not erred in ignoring the facts and circumstances available before it as emerged from the finding of the decision of the CIT(A)? (II) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the Case the learned ITAT is justified accepting the fictitious debtors of Rs. 36,78,410/- from 7 parties for which no details were furnished and the same were held as nonexistence by the AO & CIT(A)? 2. The Assessee filed its Return of Income for the Assessment Year 200809 on 29.03.2008 declaring loss of income of Rs.9,00,374/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:- (i) The outstanding liability of VAT Rs.1,00,716/was disallowed and added back to the total income; (ii) Depreciation of Plant & Machineries are disallowed and the actual cost of Plant & Machineries was treated as NIL and depreciation claimed by the Assessee amounting to Rs. 69,347/- was disallowed and added back to the total income; (iii) The claim of payment to sundry creditors of Rs.36,78,410/was disallowed and the Assessing Officer opined that it is taxable in the hands of the Assessee Company and the same was added back to the total income. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the Assessee preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Before the CIT(Appeals), the Assessee did not press the outstanding liability of VAT of Rs.1,00,716/. However, Ground No.(ii) i.e., disallowance of depreciation on Plant & Machinery amounting to Rs.69,347/and Ground No.(iii) & (iv)against the addition of Rs.36,78,410/in respect of payment to M/s. Sandeep Industries, Sundry Creditors of the Assessee Company were pressed. The CIT (Appeals) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer holding that the amount of Rs.36,78,410/is treated as undisclosed income of the Assessee Company and the action of the Assessing Officer in taxing the said amount was confirmed. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the CIT(Appeals), the Assessee preferred appeal before the ITAT. The ITAT allowed the appeal deleting the addition of Rs.36,78,410/. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the CIT(Appeals), the Assessee preferred appeal before the ITAT. The ITAT allowed the appeal deleting the addition of Rs.36,78,410/. ITAT held as under: “On careful analysis of the impugned orders passed by both the lower authorities, we find that both the lower authorities have not disputed the entries made by the assessee in the respective ledger accounts of sundry creditors as well as sundry debtors, to whom the amounts were paid for supply of machinery. Both the amounts are equal. Apart from that it is undisputed that the sundry creditors as well as sundry debtors both are regular parties dealing with assessee. It is a running account with the assess. The assessee is purchasing the materials from the said M/s. Sandeep Industries, sundry creditors and it is also undertaking the order from M/s. Sandeep Industries. The sale proceeds out of this order is entered in the account of M/s. Sandeep Industries and the same fact is also found that the assessee has made advances for supplying of machineries to various concerns during the period under consideration and the aggregate of such advances are of equal amount that were paid to M/s. Sandeep Industries towards the account. Therefore, in the light of not finding fault of this account by the departmental authorities the contention of the assessee that amount being equal and that were not disclosed in the balance sheet separately is to be accepted. In the remand report submitted by the AO no where it was mentioned that the advances given by the assessee to the suppliers for machinery is not correct. In this view of the matter, the contention of the assessee is to be accepted. Hence, we are of the conclusion that the reasons given by the departmental authorities are not sustainable for legal scrutiny. Hence, the same is hereby set aside by allowing the appeal of the assessee”. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that ITAT was not justified in deleting the entire addition of Rs.36,78,410/made by the Assessing Officer inspite of the fact that the Assessee has failed to discharge the onus regarding the creditors. It was submitted that the ITAT was not justified in accepting the fictitious debtors of Rs.36,78,410/from 7 (seven) parties for which no details were furnished and the same was held as nonexistent and prayed for allowing of the appeal. 6. It was submitted that the ITAT was not justified in accepting the fictitious debtors of Rs.36,78,410/from 7 (seven) parties for which no details were furnished and the same was held as nonexistent and prayed for allowing of the appeal. 6. The learned Senior Counsel for the Assessee raised preliminary objection relating to the maintainability of the appeal and submitted that Instruction No.3 of 2011 dated 09.02.2011 specifies the mandatory limit of Rs.10,00,000/(Rupees Ten Lakh) for maintainability of appeal before the High Court. CBDT directed the Revenue not to raise substantial question of law where the tax effect is less than the amount prescribed in the instructions issued by it. The tax effect in revenue appeals is less than Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh), which was filed even prior. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent assessee has drawn our attention to the Instruction No.3/2011 dated 9.2.2011 and submitted that the tax effect involved in this Tax Appeal is less than Rs.10.00 lacs and, therefore, the instant Tax Appeal is not maintainable. 8. We have heard Mr. Deepak Roshan, learned counsel, appearing for the Revenue, who fairly submitted that the tax effect involved in respect of addition of Rs.36,78,410 regarding the payment made to the creditor would be less than Rs.10.00 lacs and, therefore would be governed under Instruction No.3 of 2011. 9. The Instruction No.3/2011 [F. No. 279/ Misc.142 /2007 / ITJ] dated 9.2.2011 reads as follows : Instruction No. 3/2011 [F.No.279/Misc.142/2007/ITJ] Dated 9.2.2011. “Reference is invited to Board's instruction No.5/2008 dated 1552008 wherein monetary limits and other conditions for filing departmental appeals(In Income-tax matters) before Appellate Tribunal, High Courts and Supreme Court were specified. 2. In supersession of the above instruction, it has been decided by the Board that departmental appeals may be filed on merits before Appellate Tribunal, High Courts and Supreme Court keeping in view the monetary limits and conditions specified below. 3. Henceforth appeals shall not be filed in cases where the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limits given hereunder: S.No. Appeals in Income Tax matters Monetary Limit (in Rs.) 1. Appeal before Appellate Tribunal 3,00,000 2. Appeal u/s 260A before High Court 10,00,000 3. Appeal before Supreme Court 25,00,000 It is clarified that an appeal should not be filed merely because the tax effect in a case exceeds the monetary limits prescribed above. Appeal before Appellate Tribunal 3,00,000 2. Appeal u/s 260A before High Court 10,00,000 3. Appeal before Supreme Court 25,00,000 It is clarified that an appeal should not be filed merely because the tax effect in a case exceeds the monetary limits prescribed above. Filing of appeal in such cases is to be decided on merits of the case.” 10. Since the tax effect involved in the present appeal is less than Rs.10.00 lacs, in view of Instruction No. 3/2011 dated 9.2.2011, the Tax Appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable and the same is dismissed.