vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh laanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oaJh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM Misc. Application No. 04/JP/2022 (Arising out of vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No.1226/JP/2018) fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Saroj Bansal 386, Bansal Bhawan, Hanuman Ji Ka Rasta, Tripolia Bazar, Jaipur cuke Vs. The ACIT Circle-1 Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACGPB 4351 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri S.R. Sharma,CA jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Smt. Manisha Choudhary, JCIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 07/04/2022 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 12 /04/2022 vkns'k@ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This is a Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee seeking rectification of the order passed in ITA No. 1226/JP/2018 dated 14-09-2020. In the Miscellaneous Application, the assessee has prayed that in the case of the assessee Smt. Chitra Bansal, the amount of Rs.5,17,339/- is inadvertently typed at para 15 of ITAT order instead of Rs.12,17,992/- which should be rectified. 2 M.A. No. 04/JP/2022 Smt. Saroj Bansal, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-1, Jaipur 2 After hearing both the parties and perusing the materials available on record, it is noticed that typographical mistakes has occurred at para 15 of the above captioned order dated 14-09-2020. The mistake being apparent is rectified and thus, read as under:- ‘’15. We observed that the interest paid on money borrowed for purchase of asset is part of cost of improvement. It is submitted that assessee took loan to purchase plot of land which was sold during the year. Thus, loan was directly relatable to purchase of property and so interest paid thereon is required to be included in cost of acquisition of said property. The A.P. High Court in case of Addl. CITvs K.S. Gupta (1979) 119 ITR 372 has following judgement of Delhi High Court in CIT vs Mithlesh Kumari (1973) 92 ITR 9 held that interest paid on amount borrowed for purchase of open plot of land forms part of cost of acquisition. The High Court of Madras in case of CIT vs K. Raja Gopala Rao (2001) 252 ITR 459 and High Court of Karnataka in case of CIT vs Maithreys Pal (1985) 152 ITR 247 also held in same view. In view of these judicial pronouncements the assessee has correctly claimed the interest paid on borrowings for purchase of plot as cost of improvements. The action of the AO and ld. CIT(A) is contrary to law and thus cannot be sustained. Thus, the addition of Rs.12,17,992/- is grossly wrong and bad in law and accordingly deleted.’’ Except the above change, there is no other change in the above captioned order. 3 M.A. No. 04/JP/2022 Smt. Saroj Bansal, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-1, Jaipur 3.0 In the result, Miscellaneous Application of the assessee is allowed. Order is pronounced in the open Court on 12 -04-2022 Sd/- Sd.- ¼lanhi xkslkbZ½ ¼ jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ (Sandeep Gosain) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 12 /04/2022 *Mishra vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Smt. Saroj Bansal, Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ACIT, Circle-1, Jaipur 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) 5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (MA No. 04/JP/2022) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asstt. Registrar