Sh. Rajendra Joshi, Noida V. ITO, New Delhi

MA 236/DEL/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9215 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 09-01-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 27-09-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset
• Section: 54; 54F; 254(2)

Judgement Text

1 MA No. 236/Del/2020 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. No. 236/Del/2020 ( Arising out of ITA No. 982/DEL/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Rajendra Joshi, B-707, Gateway Apartments, Sector 51, Noida-201301. PAN- AFRPJ1417L Vs Income-tax Officer, Ward-68(2), New Delhi. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by None Department represented by Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR Date of hearing 05.01.2024 Date of pronouncement 10.01.2024 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JM: This miscellaneous application u/s 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has been preferred by the assessee, seeking rectification in the order dated 14.08.2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench “F” in ITA no. 982/Del/2017 for assessment year 2012-13, on the ground that an inadvertent error has crept in into the order of the Tribunal wherein the Tribunal instead of mentioning Section 54, has mentioned 54F. 2 MA No. 236/Del/2020 2. No one appeared on behalf of the assessee at the hearing despite issue of notice for hearing. We proceed to dispose of the misc. application, ex parte, qua the assessee, after hearing the learned DR and perusing the material available on record. 3. Learned DR has fairly conceded that the error needs to be rectified. He submitted that the entire discussion in the order is related to claim of deduction u/s 54 of the Act. 4. We find that before the Tribunal the claim of the assessee was related to deduction under section “54” of the Income-tax Act (the “Act”), however, while disposing of the appeal it is mentioned as “54F”. We find merit into the contention made in the misc. application that exemption u/s 54 is available on long term capital gain on sale of house property and the exemption u/s 54F would be available on long term capital gain on sale of any capital asset other than a House Property. Therefore, the mistake in mentioning correct section, being inadvertent and apparent on record, we rectify the mistake crept in Tribunal’s order dated 14.08.2020 in ITA no. 982/Del/2017 accordingly and direct that section “54F” mentioned in last line of para 10; and last line of para 11 of the Tribunal’s order shall be read as “54”. We order accordingly. 3 MA No. 236/Del/2020 5. Assessee’s misc. application stands allowed accordingly. Order pronounced in open court on 10 th January, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (M. BALAGANESH) (KUL BHARAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *MP* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI