9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (4) TMI 494X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Department against the order of the CIT(A), Jalandhar dated 4-3-1989. 2. The only effective ground raised in this appeal reads as under: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld.CIT(A) has erred in passing order under section 154(1) of the Income-tax Act and thereby allowing Rs. 3,14,000 as deduction under section 24(1)( x )." 3. The facts of the case, in brief, ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income-tax Rules, 1962. However, the claim of the assessee was rejected and the addition of Rs.3,14,400 was made. In further appeal, the learned CIT(A) also did not allow any relief to the assessee. The claim of the assessee was rejected on the ground that the assessee had to first bear the tax liability in the assessment year and thereafter it was only for the subsequent assessment year that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ointed out that the assessee had already paid tax on the annual lettable value of the property, in question. Accordingly, it was submitted that since the assessee had already offered for taxation, therefore, deduction under section 24(1)( x ) was allowable. The learned CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee and also the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relevant to the assessment year 1984-85 and in that amount a sum of Rs. 3,14,400 was included which related to the annual lettable value of the property let out to M/s. Remington Rand of India Ltd. It was stated that the aforesaid rent due from M/s. Remington Rand of India Ltd. remained unrealised as such the assessee was eligible for the deduction under section 24(1)( x ) of the Income-tax Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stant case also, the learned CIT(A) rectified the mistake under section 154 after considering the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court. As such it can safely be held that the mistake was apparent and the learned CIT(A) was justified in rectifying the same under section 154(1) of the Act in view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not see any merit in the appeal of the Department. 8. In the res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
