9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 297X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order of the Assessing Officer as well as order of the CIT(A) merged with the order of the Tribunal dated 30.1.2014. Now, the assessee through rectification application u/s 154 of the Act wants to play second innings which is nothing but abuse of the process of law. Even otherwise, the assessee has been given opportunity by the Ld. CIT(A) and the assessee, if was aggrieved from the said order, could have filed an appeal against the said order of the CIT(A) and even could have raised the issue through Cross objections along with other grounds which ultimately have been decided by the Tribunal vide order dated 30.1.2014. Even, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly observed that under the provisions of section 154 of the Act, a mistake apparent on re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uted the capital gains at ₹ 29,34,143/- as against ₹ 10,60,286/- declared by the assessee. 4. Being aggrieved by the above order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) inter alia had also taken the following grounds of appeal:- 1. a) That the Ld. A.O. is not justified in calculating the long term capital gain at ₹ 29,37,143/- as against ₹ 10,60,286/- declared in the revised return under the facts & circumstances of the case and thus denying the benefit of exemption u/s. 54-F and also brought forward unabsorbed capital loss. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) decided the aforesaid grounds against the assessee observing as under:- "3.2 Held: I have considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A.Y.2006-07 the residential house at Panchkula, the appellant reversed the exemption u/s 54F claimed against the above house in the return for the A.Y 2007-08. Thus, the flat was sold within three year from its purchase. 10 Where the new residential house which has been purchased/constructed (in respect of which exemption under section 54F has been claimed) is transferred within a period of 3 years from the date of its purchase/construction, the amount exempted (deducted) earlier under section 54F will be deemed to be long-term capital gains chargeable to tax in the previous year in which the transfer is effected Computation Capital Gain in the A.Y 2007-08 11. Appellant recomputed the LTCG from sale of Industrial Shed 84, I A, Panchkul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Capital Gain Scheme. Also, the return of income for the asstt. Year 2005-06 does not contain any evidence of deposit in the capital gain scheme. In view of foregoing fact, the assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s 54F of the Income tax Act, 1961 for an amount of ₹ 12,96,000/- as it has neither been appropriated towards the cost of new asset nor has the amount been deposited in Capital Gain scheme. 13. It is therefore quite clear that the appellant is neither entitled for exemption of ₹ 15,20,000/- being the property sold within three year of its acquisition nor the exemption of ₹ 12,96,000/- due to non deposit of unutilized amount in Capital Gain accounts. Thus, the AO has rightly calculated LTCG at ₹ 29,37,1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pronouncements. A MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE RECORD must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. Moreover, point which is not examined on fact or in law cannot be dealt with as mistake apparent from record. The same view is held in the case of CIT v. Hero Cycles (P.) Ltd. [1997] 94 Taxman 271 (SC) that -'Rectification can only be made when glaring mistake of fact or law has been committed by the officer passing the order and it becomes apparent from the record. Rectification is not possible if the question is debatable. Moreover, the point which is not examined on fact or in law cannot be dealt with as mistake ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the passing of the order which was decided by the CIT(A) on 29.3.2019. From the sequence of the events, it is apparent that initially the assessee did not choose to contest the dismissal of deduction u/s 54F of the Act either by way of appeal or by way of Cross objections in spite of the fact that the assessee preferred cross objections on other issues. The order of the CIT(A), therefore, on the issue under consideration had become final. The appeal of the Revenue as well as cross objections of the assessee were decided on 30.1.2014, therefore, the order of the Assessing Officer as well as order of the CIT(A) merged with the order of the Tribunal dated 30.1.2014. 8. Now, the assessee through rectification application u/s 154 of the Act wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
