Appeal allowed, additions deleted. Delay condoned. Rectification petition rejected. Expenditure and interest income deductions deleted.

The appeal was allowed, and the additions made by the Assessing Officer were directed to be deleted. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned as it was found to be beyond the control of the assessee. The rectification petition under section 154 was rejected as no apparent mistake was found in the assessment order. The addition of expenditure on fencing of the boundary wall was deleted as it was not considered capital expenditure. The disallowance of interest income deduction under section 80P(2)(d) was also deleted as the deduction was never claimed in the return of income.

---

---

Issues involved:
The judgment involves issues related to condonation of delay in filing the appeal, rectification petition under section 154, addition of expenditure on fencing of boundary wall, and disallowance of interest income deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act.

Condonation of delay:
The appeal was found to be time-barred by 34 days, but the delay was condoned after considering the reasons provided in the condonation petition. The delay was deemed beyond the control of the assessee and not deliberate or intentional.

Rectification petition under section 154:
The assessment was completed under sections 147 and 143(3) of the Act. The assessee's rectification petition was rejected on the grounds that no mistake was apparent from the assessment order. The first appellate authority dismissed the appeal stating that the additions were made on debatable issues and could not be rectified under section 154.

Addition of expenditure on fencing of boundary wall:
The AO added Rs. 65,000 as expenditure on fencing of the boundary wall to the total income of the assessee-society, considering it as capital expenditure. The assessee argued that as a cooperative housing society, functioning on the principle of mutuality, the fencing expenditure was not capital in nature but perishable and subject to wear and tear. The tribunal directed the AO to delete this addition, stating that the fencing did not have a permanent enduring effect.

Disallowance of interest income deduction under section 80P(2)(d):
The AO disallowed a deduction claimed under section 80P(2)(d) for interest income earned by the assessee-society, as the funds were invested in nationalized banks and not in cooperative banks. However, it was found that the deduction was never claimed by the assessee in the return of income. The tribunal directed the AO to delete this addition, as it was beyond the jurisdiction to make such an addition when the deduction was not claimed in the first place.

Separate Judgment:
The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the additions made by the AO were directed to be deleted in both the issues related to expenditure on fencing and disallowance of interest income deduction.

---