IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH E , MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.6418/M/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 ACIT 3(1)(2), M/s. EIPR (India) Ltd., Room No.607, 6th Floor, 11, Tulsiani Chambers, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai -400 021 PAN: AAACC4449C (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Ashit R. Mehta, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, D.R. Date of Hearing : 26.08.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 30.08.2019 ORDER Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member: present appeal has been preferred by Revenue against order dated 17.07.2017 of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2012-13. 2. At outset, it is noticed that AO made addition of unexplained expenditure amounting to Rs.57,36,209/- and made disallowance of Rs.7,14,850/-. CIT(A) deleted addition as well as disallowance made by AO. It is further noticed that CBDT recently has amended CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018 amounting vide Circular No. 17/2019, F.No. 279/Misc.142/2007-ITJ(Pt.) dated 08.08.2019 increasing limit for filing of appeal before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal i.e. Rs.50 lacs in each of case. We noted that earlier Circular No. 3 of 2018 was made applicable to 2 ITA No.6418/M/2017 M/s. EIPR (India) Ltd. pending appeals also and this clause of circular remains unchanged even after amendment. Admittedly, in this case tax effect is below prescribed limit for filing of appeal before Tribunal by Revenue i.e. Rs.50 lacs. 3. When this was confronted to learned Sr. Departmental Representative, he could not point out that this appeal falls under any of exception as provided in Circular No. 17 of 2019. Admittedly, tax effect in this appeal of Revenue is much below prescribed limit of filing appeal before Tribunal i.e. Rs.50 lacs as per CBDT circular No. 17 of 2019. In view of above, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed as withdrawn in view of Circular No. 17 of 2019. 4. Now, before us, learned CIT Departmental Representative only requested that he want to verify whether this appeal falls under any of explanation provided in CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Here, we are of giving liberty to Revenue that in case, after passing of order it comes to notice of Revenue that this appeal does not falls under any explanation of CBDT by 3/18, AO can move for recalling of order within prescribed time limit under section 254 of Act. Hence, this appeal is dismissed as low tax effect covered by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. 5. In result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 30.08.2019. Sd/- Sd/- (Mahavir Singh) (Rajesh Kumar) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 30.08.2019. * Kishore, Sr. P.S. 3 ITA No.6418/M/2017 M/s. EIPR (India) Ltd. Copy to: Appellant Respondent CIT, Concerned, Mumbai CIT (A) Concerned, Mumbai DR Concerned Bench //True Copy// [ By Order Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai. ACIT-3(1)(2), Mumbai v. EIPR (India) Ltd