SHRI CHIRANJIV LAL KACHOLIA, Kota V. ACIT, Kota

MA 15/JPR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2338 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 19-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 22-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D C SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: C M BIRLA
• Section: 54F

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH: JAIPUR (BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI AND SHRI T.R. MEENA) M.A. NO. 15/JP/2014 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO. 180/JP/2012) ASSTT. YEAR-2007-08 PAN NO. ASJPK 5477 A CHIRANJIV LAL KACHOLIA, THE ACIT POST OFFICE ROAD, VRS. CIRCLE-1 BHAWANIMANDI, DISTT.-JHALAWAR. KOTA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI C.M. BIRLA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI D.C. SHARMA. DATE OF HEARING : 19/09/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19/09/2014. O R D E R PER: T.R. MEENA, A.M. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS M.A. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, JAIPUR IN ITA NO. 180/JP/2012, WHICH WAS PASSED ON 26/02/2014 F OR A.Y. 2007-08. 2. THE ASSESSEE RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL AN D FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF M.A. THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO ERRED IN RESTRICTING DEDUCTION U/S 54F T O ONE FLAT ONLY AS MA 15/JP/2014 CHIRANJIV LAL KACHOLIA VS. ACIT 2 AGAINST FOUR FLATS CLAIMED WHICH WERE ON SAME FLOOR P URCHASED BY APPELLANT FOR HIS FOUR SONS. DURING APPEAL HEARING, THE APPELLANT WAS REPRESENTE D THROUGH HIS COUNSEL, WHO HAD VERBALLY ARGUED THE CASE BEFORE THE HONBLE BENCH AND HAD ALSO FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. AS APPEARS FROM WRITTEN SUBMISS ION ALSO WHILE ARGUING AFORESAID GROUND HIS TRESS WAS ON FOLLOWING- THAT I AM ENCLOSING HEREWITH COPY OF PURCHASE OF HOU SE SITUATED IN MAHALAXMI ENCLAVE BARAN ROAD, KOTA VIDE ANNEXURE-D TO THIS LETTER. I MAY MENTION AT THIS STAGE THAT THOUGH FROM PURCHASE DEED IT APPEARS THAT I HAVE PURCHASED 4 FLATS HOWEVER, IT IS NOT SO. IN FACT THIS HOUSE IS COMPACT OF 4 FLATS WHICH HAS BEEN PURCHASED BY ME WI TH AN INTENTION TO GIVE 1 FLAT EACH TO MY 4 SONS AFTER MY DEATH. I MAY ALSO MENTION AT THIS STAGE THAT ENTRY IN THE HOUSE IS FROM SAME COMPACT GATE AND FROM INSIDE OF THE HOUSE THEY ALL ARE ATTACHED TO EACH O THER. RELIANCE IN THIS REGARD IS MADE ON (I) SMT. HANSA BAI SANGHI VS. ITO 89 ITD 239 (II) SMT. KALAWATI D ALJERA VS. ITO 54 TTJ 593 (BOMBAY). AS INVESTMENT HAS BEEN MADE BY ME IN HOUSE WITHIN THE PERIOD PRESCRIBE D UNDER SECTION 54F IT IS SUBMITTED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F MAY KINDLY BE ALLOWED WHILE COMPUTING MY TAXABLE INCOME TO INVESTMENT IN T HE HOUSE RS. 70,00,000/- AND REGISTRATION CHARGES RS. 360690/- W HICH TOTALS TO RS. 7360690/-. 2. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED D.R. ARGUED THAT REVI EW OF ITS OWN ORDER BY THE HONBLE BENCH U/S 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT I S NOT ALLOWED. MA 15/JP/2014 CHIRANJIV LAL KACHOLIA VS. ACIT 3 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. THE APPELLANT HAD BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT FOUR FLATS WERE COMPACT HOUSE ON WHICH DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE IT ACT CAN BE CLAIMED. THESE FACTS ALSO CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNE D CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER, THEREFORE, THE COORDINATE BENCH DECISION ON THIS IS SUE IS AN APPARENT MISTAKE AND REQUIRED TO BE RECTIFIED U/S 254(2) OF THE IT AC T. ACCORDINGLY, WE ALLOW THE ASSESSEES M.A. 4. IN THE RESULT, M.A. APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19/09/2014. SD/- SD/- (R.P. TOLANI) (T.R. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JAIPUR, DATED : 19 TH SEPTEMBER, 2014 * RANJAN COPY FORWARDED TO :- 1. SHRI CHIRANJIV LAL KACHOLIA, JHALAWAR 2. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KOTA. 3. THE CIT (A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE D/R GUARD FILE (M.A. NO. 15/JP/2014) BY ORDER, AR ITAT JAIPUR.