आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ ᭠यायपीठ, चे᳖ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI ᮰ी महावीर ᳲसह, उपा᭟यᭃ एवं ᮰ी मंजुनाथ जी, लेखा सद᭭य के समᭃ BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER िविवध यािचका सं / M.A. No.187/CHNY/2022 (arising in I.T.A. No. 1828/CHNY/2019) िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The ACIT, Non-Corporate Circle 10(1), Chennai. v. Shri Lingesan, No.1/279, OMR, Semmancheri, Chennai – 600 119. PAN: ABPPL 8184N (अपीलाथᱮ / Applicant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से /Applicant by : Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri V. Veeraraghavan, Advocate सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/ Date of hearing : 31.03.2023 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 17.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT: This Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue is against the order of the Tribunal in ITA No. 1828/CHNY/2019, order dated 21.10.2022 pointing out the mistake in the order. 2. The Revenue stated that ground No.2 is not adjudicated by Tribunal. He pointed out the following ground No.2 :- 2 M.A No.187/CHNY/2022 2. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in arriving at the conclusion that the assessee was entitled to benefit of deduction u/s 54F as he owned only residential house. 3. We noticed that the Revenue has raised the issue of non- adjudication of ground by Tribunal vide its miscellaneous application para No.2 & 3 as under:- 2. The only issue involved in the said appeal is denial of deduction claimed u/s 54F and the same was raised in Gr. 2. AO rejected the claim invoking cl. (a)(i) of the proviso top sec. 54F(1) which reads as under : Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply where - (a) the assessee (i) owns more than one residential house, other than the new asset on the date of transfer of the original asset However as evident from para 6 & 7 of the order, Hon'ble ITAT adjudicated the issue as to whether the phrase “a residential building" appearing in sec.54F(1) means one or multiple residential units prior to the amendment made w.e.f. 01.04.2015. Thus the ground raised by appellant was not adjudicated in the order of ITAT. 3. Since non-adjudication of ground raised by appellant is a mistake apparent on record, it is submitted that an order u/s 254(2) may be passed at the earliest and the appeal may be recalled and heard again. 4. The ld.counsel for the assessee as well as ld. Senior DR agreed that ground No.2, as noted above has to be adjudicated and for this a limited purpose recalling of the order is necessary. 5. As pointed out by ld. Senior DR and conceded by ld.counsel, the Ground No.2 raised by Revenue in its appeal is not adjudicated 3 M.A No.187/CHNY/2022 and hence, qua ground No.2, the order of Tribunal is recalled and registry is directed to fix the appeal for hearing on 12.06.2023. 6. In the result, the miscellaneous application of the Revenue is allowed to that above extent. Order pronounced in the open court on 17 th May, 2023 at Chennai Sd/- Sd/- (मंजुनाथ जी) (MANJUNATHA G) लेखा सद᭭य /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (महावीर ᳲसह ) (MAHAVIR SINGH) उपा᭟यᭃ /VICE PRESIDENT चे᳖ई/Chennai, ᳰदनांक/Dated, the 17 th May, 2023 RSR आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथᱮ/Applicant 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुᲦ /CIT 4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध/DR 5. गाडᭅ फाईल/GF.