JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by R. Sudhakar J.-Aggrieved by order passed by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in dismissing appeal filed by it, Revenue is before this court by filing present appeal, raising following questions of law: "(1) Whether it is proper for Tribunal to dismiss appeal of Department without going into merits of case on ground of low monetary limit especially when there was revenue audit objection? (2) Whether it is proper for Tribunal to dismiss appeal of Department on ground that Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular No. 3 of 2011, dated February 9, 2011, in paragraph 8 clearly mention exception which was not considered while dismissing appeal? (3) Whether sitting fee amount of Rs. 2,52,000 being excess remuneration paid to director over and above limits prescribed under Companies Act are allowable? (4) Whether as per section 198 read with section 309 and Schedule XIII to Companies Act which prescribes limit for paying remuneration by way of salary is to be followed or assessee is entitled to more than limits prescribed therein? (5) Whether, in Schedule XIII to Companies Act, remuneration has been defined would include director's sitting fee also?" See [2011] 332 ITR (St.) 1. assessee, in course of normal business, filed return of income on November 24, 2003, which was processed under section 143(1) of Income-tax Act on December 6, 2003. notice was issued under section 143(2) of Act on February 15, 2006, to which assessee filed its response. assessment was completed and Assessing Officer found that during year ending March 31, 2005, company had paid excess payment towards remuneration. Therefore, Assessing Officer held that, according to Schedule XIII to Companies Act, remuneration would include any other allowance and, therefore, would cover sitting fees as well and, therefore, while allowing amount, same was added as income by Assessing Officer. Aggrieved against said order of Assessing Officer, assesseerespondent filed appeal before Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who allowed appeal of assessee and deleted addition of Rs. 2,52,000 made by Assessing Officer. Revenue, aggrieved by order of Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals), dated January 7, 2011, on reopening done for assessment year in question, i.e., 2003-04, by which Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that addition is not valid and, thereby deleted addition of Rs. 2,52,000 made by Assessing Officer by disallowing claim of remuneration paid to directors, filed appeal before Tribunal. Tribunal, in paragraph 2 of its order, has categorically held that even if reopening is held to be valid, addition effected by Assessing Officer is only Rs. 2,52,000, which is much less than Rs. 3 lakhs and tax component is well below Rs. 2 lakhs and, placing reliance upon Central Board of Direct Taxes Instruction No. 3 of 2011, dated February 9, 2011, held that appeal is not maintainable. For better clarity, paragraph 2 of order passed by Tribunal, is extracted hereinbelow: "2. It is clear from grounds itself that even if reopening is held to be valid, addition effected by Assessing Officer being only Rs. 2,52,000 tax effect is much less than Rs. 3 lakhs and even well below Rs. 2 lakhs. Therefore, in view of Central Board of Direct Taxes Instruction No. 3 of 2011, dated February 9, 2011, appeal is not maintainable." Aggrieved by said order of Tribunal, Revenue is before this court by filing present appeal. It is primary contention of Mr. Ravikumar, learned standing counsel appearing for appellant-Revenue, that case will fall under subclause (c) of clause 8 of Central Board of Direct Taxes Instruction No. 3 of 2011, dated February 9, 2011. For better appreciation, sub-clause (c) of clause 8 of Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular No. 3 of 2011, dated February 9, 2011, is extracted hereunder (see [2011] 332 ITR (St.) 1, 3): "8. Adverse judgments relating to following issues should be contested on merits notwithstanding that tax effect entailed is less than monetary limits specified in paragraph 3 above or there is no tax effect. (a) Where Constitutional validity of provisions of Act or Rule are under challenge, or (b) Where Board's order, notification, instruction or circular has been held to be illegal or ultra vires, or (c) Where revenue audit objection in case has been accepted by Department." It is contention of Mr. Ravikumar that there being revenue audit objection in so far as particular transaction is concerned, same would fall well within sub-clause (c) of clause 8 of Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular No. 3 of 2011, dated February 9, 2011. However, we find that there is no document relating to revenue audit objection available in typed set of documents filed along with this appeal. It is also evident from order passed by Tribunal that there is no reference to any document filed by Department, before Tribunal, in so far as revenue audit objection in relation to said transaction is concerned. In such view of matter, this court is in agreement with view taken by Tribunal that Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular No. 3 of 2011, dated February 9, 2011, will come into play and, therefore, dismissal of appeal is entirely justified. No question of law, much less substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this appeal. For reasons aforestated, finding no infirmity with order passed by Tribunal warranting interference, this appeal fails and same is dismissed. *** Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shri Shanthinath Benefit Fund Ltd