TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... basis of the findings of Assessing Officer. No doubt, u/s. 154 of the Act, only mistakes apparent from record can be rectified and if an order u/s. 154 has to be passed after long drawn arguments, then, it cannot be said that there is a mistake apparent from record. However, except for relying on the earlier order of the CIT (A), the assessee has brought on record any evidence to demonstrate that the two units on second floor of the building were residential units. AO has brought on record that the entire building was a commercial building and the assessee was entitled to office space on second floor of the building. Thus, clearly, it was factually incorrect to hold that the assessee has received two residential units. An erroneous findi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent agreement with a builder. 2.1. With regard to assessee s claim of deduction u/s. 54F of the Act, the CIT(A) granted partial relief by holding that ground and first floors were commercial, whereas the second floor was a residential area and that the assessee was eligible for deduction u/s 54F on such residential property. Further aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT, which remitted the issue back to the file of Assessing Officer with a direction to adopt the cost of the construction of the floor areas surrendered to assessee by the developer as the consideration for the land transferred by the assessee to the developer. Consequently, order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act was pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eration, appeal of the assessee against the assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act was dismissed. 3.1. Now, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal both against the order u/s. 154 and also the appellate order against the assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act. 4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the CIT(A), in the earlier proceedings had considered the issue at length and had held the flats on the second floor to be residential flats and had directed to allow the deduction u/s. 54F of the Act in respect of the same. He submitted that by virtue of the order u/s. 154 of the Act, the CIT(A) has re-visited the issue and reviewed the order, which is not permissible in law. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, except for relying on the earlier order of the CIT ()A), the assessee has brought on record any evidence to demonstrate that the two units on second floor of the building were residential units. On the contrary, AO has brought on record that the entire building was a commercial building and the assessee was entitled to office space on second floor of the building. Thus, clearly, it was factually incorrect to hold that the assessee has received two residential units. An erroneous finding of fact is undisputedly an error apparent from record rectifiable u/s 154 of the Act. Therefore, according to me, the order u/s. 154 is sustainable. Thus, the assessee s appeal is allowed. 6.1. In view of the appeal in ITA No. 1182/Hyd/201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
