, D IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE S/SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JM, & MANISH BORAD, AM ./IT(SS)A.NO.109/AHD/2012 ( / ASSTT YEAR : 2009-10) ACIT, CC 1(4), AHMEDABAD VS. MAHEK AGRO MINERAL P. LTD. 1 ST FLOOR, DAULAT NIWAS, ALKA CINEMA ROAD, OPP. HOTEL MAUSAM, BHAVNAGAR PAN : AAMFM9479M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY: SHRI SANJAY AGRAWAL, CIT/DR / RESPONDENT BY: SRI TUSHAR HEMANI, AR / DATE OF HEARING 06/01/2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 8-01-2016 / O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE OR DER OF LD. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-1, AHMEDABAD DATE D 14.11.2011 IN APPEAL NO.CIT(A)-I/CC-1(4)/118/2010-11, PASSED FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2009-10. ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 15 3B OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) ON 28/10/2010 BY A CIT, CC-1(4), AHMEDABAD. IT(SS)A.NO.109/AHD/2012 - 2 2. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE LD.CIT( A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDIT ION OF RS.22,47,358/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF PEAK OF NEGATIVE CASH AS UNDISCL OSED INVESTMENTS. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE RECORD, WE FIND THA T THIS APPEAL WAS PRESENTED ON 10.2.2012. ON 10.12.2015 THE CBDT HAS ISSUED INSTRUCTIONS BEARING NO. 21/2015 PROHIBITING ITS SU BORDINATE AUTHORITIES FROM FILING OF THE APPEAL TO THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WHERE THE TAX EFFECT BY VIRTUE OF THE RELIEF GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) IS LESS THAN RS.10 LAKHS. THE INSTRUCTIONS HAVE BEEN MADE APPLICABLE WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT, MEANING THEREBY, THESE INSTRU CTIONS ARE APPLICABLE ON PENDING APPEALS ALSO. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASS ESSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS OF RS.1,27,11,632/-. THE ADDITION DIRE CTED TO BE DELETED BY THE CIT(A) IS RS. 22,47,358/-. THE TAX EFFECT ON DELETION OF THIS TOTAL ADDITION WOULD BE LESS THAN RS.10 LAKHS. THE PRESE NT APPEAL DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED BEING TREATED TO BE FILED IN VIOLATION OF CBDT INSTRUCTIONS. THE CASE DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF EXCEPTIO NS PROVIDED IN THE INSTRUCTIONS. IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT SINCE, W HILE HEARING THE APPEAL, SUCH FACTORS WERE NOT CONSIDERED, THEREFORE, IN CAS E, ON RE-VERIFICATION AT IT(SS)A.NO.109/AHD/2012 - 3 THE END OF THE AO, IT CAME TO THE NOTICE THAT THE T AX EFFECT IS MORE OR IT FALLS WITHIN THE AMBIT OF EXCEPTIONS PROVIDED IN TH E INSTRUCTION, THEN THE DEPARTMENT WILL BE AT LIBERTY TO APPROACH THE TRIBU NAL FOR RECALL OF THIS ORDER. SUCH APPLICATION SHOULD BE FILED WITHIN FOU R YEARS OF THIS ORDER. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 8 TH JANUARY, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED, 8/01/2016 ! '!/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. $% / THE APPELLANT 2. &$% / THE RESPONDENT. 3. '(( ) * / CONCERNED CIT 4. ) * ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 5. !-. , ,012 /DR,ITAT, RAJKOT 6. .3 45 / GUARD FILE. ) ' / BY ORDER, ' (0 (ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ITAT, AHMEDABAD IT(SS)A.NO.109/AHD/2012 - 4 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. : 6/1/2016 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER : 7/1/2016 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P.S./P.S. 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 8/1/2016 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER