IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                  (DELHI BENCH: `E': NEW DELHI)

           BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER
                               AND
         SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

                      ITA No:- 649/Del/2015
                    (Assessment Year: 2005-06)

   Income Tax Officer                 M/s MSS Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd.,
   Ward-17(2), New Delhi           Vs Shop No. 10, 32-C, BR
                                      Complex, Near Una Enclave,
                                      Mayur Vihar, Delhi-110091

                                        PAN-AAECM0929K
   APPELLANT                            RESPONDENT
   Appellant by        Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
   Respondent by       Sh. P.C. Yadav, Advocate

                                  ORDER

PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, AM

[A].   This appeal has been filed by Revenue against the order

dated 14.11.2014 passed by Learned Commissioner of Income

Tax(Appeals)-IX, New Delhi [in short, "Ld.CIT(A)"] pertaining to

assessment year 2005-06. In this appeal, the tax effect is less than

the monetary limit fixed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (in

short "CBDT") in its Circular No.17/2009 dated 08.08.2019. The

Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:-

   (1) Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld.
       CIT(A) has erred in deleting the additions of Rs. 26,00,000/- made
       by the AO on account of Unexplained Investment u/s 69 of the IT
       Act, 1961?
                                                       ITA No: -649/Del/2015








   (2) Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld.
       CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition to the tune of Rs.
       81,72,077/- made by the AO on account of Unexplained Credits u/s
       68 of the I.T. Act, 1961?
   (3) Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld.
       CIT(A) has erred in estimating expenses of the assessee at 75% of
       receipts without any basis and without verifying any detail of
       expense claimed?
   (4) Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld.
       CIT(A) has erred in admitting Additional Evidence under rule 46A
       when the case of the assessee did not fall under any of the
       exception provided therein?
   (5) That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous and is not tenable on
       facts and in law."


[B].   At the outset, it was brought to our notice by learned counsel

for the Assessee, at the time of hearing, that tax effect in this

appeal is below Rs. 50,00,000./-. Vide recent CBDT Circular

No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 read with earlier CBDT Circular No.

3 of 2018, dated 11.07.2018, minimum threshold limit of tax effect

of filing of appeals by Revenue in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

("ITAT", for short) has been enhanced to Rs. 50,00,000/-. In a

subsequent clarification issued by CBDT vide F.No. 279/Misc/M-

93/2018-ITJ, dated 20/08/2019, it has been clarified by CBDT

that the aforesaid revised monetary limit is also applicable to all

pending appeals in ITAT. Therefore, in view of the foregoing, we are

of the view that this appeal filed by Revenue is not maintainable.

The learned Departmental Representative also did not press the

appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed being not pressed, and

also not maintainable, having regard to aforesaid CBDT Circular
                                                                    Page | 2
                                                ITA No: -649/Del/2015



No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 read with aforesaid CBDT Circular

No. 3 of 2018 in the light of aforesaid clarification dated

20/08/2019.


[C]. Before leaving, we clarify that Revenue will be at liberty to

approach Income Tax Appellate Tribunal U/s 254(2) of Income

Tax Act, 1961 seeking recall of this order and, for restoration

of the appeal if it is found that this appeal of Revenue          is

not covered     by aforesaid CBDT Circulars dated 08.08.2019

and 11.07.2018.







[D].   In the result, the appeal by Revenue is dismissed. Our

decision was orally pronounced in the Open Court after conclusion

of hearing on the date of hearing. Now, this written order is

pronounced in Open Court on


         Sd/-                                     Sd/-
   (H.S. SIDHU)                          (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA)
JUDICIAL MEMBER                           ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 06/12/2019
SH

Copy   forwarded to:
  1.    Appellant
  2.    Respondent
  3.    CIT
  4.    CIT(Appeals)
  5.    DR: ITAT


                                          ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
                                                ITAT NEW DELHI



                                                             Page | 3
                                                  ITA No: -649/Del/2015




Draft dictated                                 05.12.2019
Draft placed before author
Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS
Order signed and pronounced on
File sent to the Bench Clerk
                                               06.12.2019
Date   on which file goes to the AR
Date   on which file goes to the Head Clerk.
Date   of dispatch of Order.
Date   of uploading on the website             06.12.2019




                                                               Page | 4