“ 14. It is apparent from the above that the tax effect is in the vicinity of Rs. 2,20,100, which is less than the threshold of Rs. 1,00,00,000 for filing an appeal in the High Court. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that since the Commissioner had set aside the assessment order with a direction to the assessee to make a fresh assessment, the tax effect could not be ascertained and the appeal was not covered under the Central Board of Direct Taxes circulars issued in this regard. The said contention is unpersuasive. The orders passed under section 263 of the Act are not excluded from the purview of the circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) fixing the monetary limits for filing appeals. In the present case, although the Commissioner had remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer, he had also broadly quantified the income, which, according to the Commissioner, had been underassessed. A meaningful reading of the order passed by the Commissioner under section 263 of the Act clearly indicates that the net tax effect of setting aside the said order is far below the monetary limit specified by the Central Board of Direct Taxes.
