2019 (3) TMI 1599 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification u/s 254 - allowability of assessee s claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(e) - HELD THAT - Issue decided in the light of the decision of the Hon ble High Court in the case of the assessee itself on the impugned issue after noting the fact that the CIT(A) himself had verified the component of rent received by the assessee eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(e) as per the directions of the Hon ble High Court. I.T.A.T. had also taken note of the fact that in the earlier years this issue had been sent back to the A.O. for verification and adjudication in the light of the findings of the Hon ble High Court. In the impugned year since it was found that the verification had already been done by the CIT(A) himself which was in accordance with the findings of the Hon ble High Court the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed on this count. The plea of the Revenue therefore that the issue needed to be restored back to the A.O. in the light of the decision of the I.T.A.T. in the earlier years therefore is based on incorrect appreciation of facts. We hold that there is clearly no error in the order of the I.T.A.T. and both the Miscellaneous Applications filed by the Revenue are therefore dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification sought by Revenue in consolidated order regarding dismissal of appeal on addition made u/s 80P(2)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:

1. Issue of Rectification by Revenue:
The Revenue filed Miscellaneous Applications seeking rectification in the consolidated order passed by ITAT regarding the dismissal of the appeal on the addition made under section 80P(2)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue contended that the issue was covered in its favor based on previous cases where similar appeals were dismissed, indicating a favorable stance towards the Revenue.

2. Contentions of the Parties:
During the hearing, the Revenue reiterated its contentions made in the Miscellaneous Application, emphasizing that the issue was decided in favor of the assessee erroneously. On the other hand, the counsel for the assessee argued that the ITAT had considered the issue in the preceding years and decided in favor of the assessee after taking into account the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court.

3. Decision of the ITAT:
After careful consideration of the arguments and reviewing the impugned orders, the ITAT found no merit in the Revenue's Miscellaneous Application. The ITAT observed that the issue of the deduction under section 80P(2)(e) was decided in light of the Hon'ble High Court's decision, which was verified by the CIT(A). The ITAT noted that in previous years, the issue was referred back to the Assessing Officer for verification, but in the impugned year, the CIT(A) had already verified the relevant details as per the High Court's directions.

4. Conclusion:
The ITAT held that there was no error in its order, as the issue had been adequately adjudicated by the CIT(A) based on the High Court's decision. The ITAT dismissed the Revenue's Miscellaneous Applications, concluding that there was no requirement to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer. Therefore, both the Miscellaneous Applications filed by the Revenue were dismissed by the ITAT.