Sri Ramaiah Harish, Bangalore V. Income Tax Officer Ward-7(2)(4) , Bangalore

MA 134/BANG/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6922 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-12-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 10-10-2021
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 54F; 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDNET AND SHRI B.R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.P No.134/Bang/2021 [In ITA No.789/Bang/2019] Assessment year : 2015-16 Shri Ramaiah Harish, No.100, ‘Pruthvi Nilaya’, 4 th Cross, R.K Layout, 2 nd Stage, Padmanabhanagar, Bengaluru-560 070. PAN – AARPH 6742 D Vs. The Income-tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(4), Bengaluru. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Gangadhar Shastry, ITP Revenue by : Shri K Sankar Ganesh, JCIT (DR) Date of hearing : 26.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 07.12.2021 O R D E R Per B.R Baskaran, Accountant Member The assessee has filed this miscellaneous petition against the order dated 24/9/2021 passed in the hands of the assessee for assessment year 2015-16 I n the ITA number mentioned in the caption. 2. We heard both the parties and perused the records. We noticed that the Tribunal has disposed of the issue relating to eligibility of assessee for deduction u/s 54F of the Act. The assessee had constructed a house, which consisted of ground floor and 4 floors above it. The Assessing Officer held that the house M.P No.134/Bang/2021 Page 2 of 4 property constructed by the assessee consisted of more than one residential house and accordingly restricted deduction u/s 54F of the Act. The Tribunal, however, held that the entire house property should be considered as one residential house consisting of many residential units and accordingly directed the AO to allow deduction u/s 54F of the Act for the cost of entire house property. In the present petition, the assessee seeks that the Tribunal should also compute the amount of deduction allowable u/s 54F of the Act. 3. At the time of hearing, the ld.AR, besides reiterating the prayer made in the petition, also submitted that the Tribunal should direct the AO to offer the assessee the opportunity of physical hearing. 4. We heard ld. DR and perused the record. We noticed that both requests of the assessee, i.e the request made in the petition as well as request made by ld.AR before us do not emanate from the appeal filed by the assessee. The Tribunal has only adjudicated the issue urged before it. We notice that the assessee has not pointed out any error or mistake in the order passed by the Tribunal. Hence the prayer of the assessee cannot be entertained by the Tribunal under the powers given to it u/s 254(2) of the Act, under which the Tribunal is only entitled to rectify the mistakes apparent from record. Accordingly, we reject the miscellaneous petition filed by the assessee. M.P No.134/Bang/2021 Page 3 of 4 5. In the result, the miscellaneous petition filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 7 th December 2021. Sd/- (N.V Vasudevan) Vice President Sd/- (B.R Baskaran) Accountant Member Bangalore, Dated, 7 th December 2021 / vms / Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore