IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                 DELHI BENCH `A', NEW DELHI
     Before Sh. J. S. Reddy, AM And Sh. George George K., JM
             ITA No. 4117/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year : 2000-01
Akhilesh Manglik,                  Vs    Income-tax Officer, Ward ­ 2(1)
B-5, Industrial Estate,                  Dehradun (Uttarakhand)
Dehradun (Uttarakhand)
(APPELLANT)                              (RESPONDENT)

            ITA No. 3968/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year : 2000-01
Income-tax Officer, Ward ­ 2(1)    Vs    Akhilesh Manglik,
Dehradun (Uttarakhand)                   B-5, Industrial Estate,
                                         Dehradun (Uttarakhand)
(APPELLANT)                              (RESPONDENT)
PAN No. ABNPM2826Q

                 Assessee by : Sh. Piyush Kaushik, Adv.
                 Revenue by : Sh. A. Mishra, CIT DR

Date of Hearing : 15.7.2014        Date of Pronouncement : 18.7.2014
                                  ORDER
Per George George K., JM:

       These are cross appeals filed against the order of CIT(A) dated
2.6.2011, pertaining to assessment year 2000-01.

2.     At the time of hearing of the assessee's appeal (ITA No.
4117/2011), the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that he is
withdrawing the appeal. An endorsement to that effect has been recorded
in the order sheet. Accordingly, the assessee's appeal is dismissed as
withdrawn.
                                        2                  ITA No. 4117 & 3968/Del/2011
                                                                       Akhilesh Manglik








3.   In the Revenue's appeal the grounds raised reads as under:-
     "1. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in issuing
     directions to verify whether the amount in question has been offered to
     tax in hands of any of the entities on whom the survey operations were
     carried out.
     2. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not deciding the
     issue either in favour of the assessee or in rejecting the appeal of the
     assessee on the basis of material available on record.
     3. The order of ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of A.O be restored."

4.   From the above grounds, the Revenue has not made out any
grievance against the order of the CIT(A). The ld. DR also did not point
out any specific grievance, as against the order of the CIT(A). Moreover,
the ld. Counsel for the assessee, submitted that in view of the revised
monetary limit issued by the Board instructions dated 10.7.2014 (CBDT
Instructions No. 5/2014), the tax effect in this case would be below the
monetary limit prescribed by the Board. It was further submitted that in
view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the
case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s P. S. Jain and Company
(ITR 179/1991 judgment dated 2.8.2010), the revised Board Circular are
applicable to the pending cases.






5.   After hearing rival contentions, we are of the view that since
Revenue has not been able to point out any specific grievance in their
appeal, the Revenue's appeal is to be dismissed and we accordingly
dismiss the same.
                                               3                   ITA No. 4117 & 3968/Del/2011
                                                                               Akhilesh Manglik

6.      In the result, both assessee's and Revenue's appeal are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 18/7/2014



                     Sd/-                                                  Sd/-
    (J. S. Reddy)                                                (George George K.)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                                               JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 18/7/2014
*Subodh*
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(Appeals)
5.DR: ITAT
                                                                ASSISTANT REGISTRAR




                                                        Date    Initial
1.     Draft dictated on                            15.7.2014              PS
2.     Draft placed before author                   15.7.2014              PS
3.     Draft proposed & placed before the                                  JM/AM
       second member
4.     Draft discussed/approved by Second                                  JM/AM
       Member.
5.     Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS                                PS/PS
6.     Kept for pronouncement on                                           PS
7.     File sent to the Bench Clerk                                        PS
8.     Date on which file goes to the AR
9.     Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk.
10.    Date of dispatch of Order.