Tribunal Rectifies Double Disallowance in Lease Rent Order

The tribunal allowed the assessee's Miscellaneous Petition (M.P.) for rectification of apparent mistakes in the order concerning the double disallowance of Lease Rent. The tribunal acknowledged the double disallowance issue, rectified the order, and allowed Ground No. 6 raised by the assessee, addressing the part disallowance of Rs. 4,68,600 out of the total disallowance of Lease Rent Rs. 6,00,000 made by the Assessing Officer. Other grounds raised by the assessee that were previously rejected remained unchanged. The overall outcome of the appeal was labeled as "partly Allowed," with only Ground No. 6 being rectified and allowed.

---

---

Issues:
Rectification of apparent mistakes in tribunal order regarding double disallowance of Lease Rent.

Analysis:
The M.P. filed by the assessee contended that there were apparent mistakes in the tribunal order that needed rectification under section 254(2). The learned AR of the assessee pointed out that the tribunal held there was no double disallowance made by the AO, but the computation of income showed otherwise. The AO had disallowed Lease Rent Rs. 6 Lacs twice, resulting in a net loss under the head "Income from House Property." The DR of the revenue argued against any mistake in the tribunal order but failed to identify any errors in the arguments presented by the assessee.

Upon considering the submissions and reviewing the records, it was found that there was indeed a double disallowance of Lease Rent Rs. 6 Lacs as claimed by the assessee. The AO had not given effect to the loss worked out under the head "Income from House Property," resulting in a lesser taxable income. The tribunal accepted the mistake in its order and allowed Ground No. 6 raised by the assessee, concerning the part disallowance of Rs. 4,68,600 out of the total disallowance of Lease Rent Rs. 6,00,000 made by the AO. This rectification was necessary due to the double disallowance issue discussed above. While Ground No. 6 was allowed, other grounds like Ground No. 3, 5, and 7, which were previously rejected, remained unchanged.

In conclusion, the M.P. of the assessee was allowed, and the rectification was made to address the double disallowance of Lease Rent issue. The tribunal's decision rectifying the mistake in the order ensured that the correct amount of disallowance was considered, leading to the allowance of Ground No. 6 raised by the assessee. The ultimate result of the appeal, labeled as "partly Allowed," remained the same, with only Ground No. 6 being rectified and allowed.

---