TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 538
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the scope and jurisdiction of section 154. (i) Denial of the claim of the deduction u/s 54F of Rs. 5,25,700/-. (ii) Disallowance of the indexed cost of improvement of Rs. 1,80,514/- (iii) Disallowance of transfer expenses of Rs. 60,000/- 4. The AO further erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging interest u/s 234B of the Act. The appellant totally denies its liability of charging of any such interest. The interest so charged, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly deleted in full. 2.1 The assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 14- 02-2012 declaring total income of Rs. 1,86,420/-. During the scrutiny assessment, the AO noted that the assessee has declared capital gains of Rs. 1,81,604/- on sale of property bearing No. B-277, Vigyan Nagar,Jaipur for sale consideration of Rs. 15.21. lacs. The AO further noted that the assessee has claimed indexed cost of acquisition while computing capital gains. Accordingly, the AO accepted returned income while framing the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on 30-12-2013. Thereafter the AO proposed to rectify the mistake in the assessment order u/s 154 of the Act to withdraw the cl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hich can be rectified. The ld.AR of the assessee contended that it is settled proposition of law that mistake which is apparent and patent can be rectified u/s 154 of the Act and not something which could be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on the point of issue involved. The ld.AR of the assessee relied on the decision of relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme in the case of T.S. Balaram, Income Tax Officer vs Volkart Brothers & Ors, 82 ITR 50 (SC). The ld.AR of the assessee further contended that Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the term apparent, patent and manifest mistake on the face of the record in number of decisions including the decision in the case of ACIT vs Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd [2008] 219 CTR 90 as well as decision in the case of CIT vs Hero Cycles (P) Ltd (1997) 228 ITR 463 (SC). Thus the ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the AO while passing the scrutiny assessment on 30-12- 2013 had given a finding on the issue of deduction u/s 54 of the Act as well cost of acquisition and improvement. The AO accepted the claim after verification of the necessary evidences and he was satisfied about the allowability of deduction. Ther....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eration, the assessee has declared capital gain for taxation at Rs. 1,81,604/-. 2. Necessary evidences were filed for sale/purchase of properties which were considered and place on file. The assessee has sold a plot No. B-277, Vigyan Nagar,Jaipur for Rs. 15,21,000/- to Smt. Soniya Ahuja wife of Shri Ramesh Ahuja on 24-11-2010. After indexing the capital gain comes at Rs. 13,03,474/-. Against the capital gain the assessee has invested in separate unit at first floor at his residence at Plot No. 8/138, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur. Rs. 5,25,700/- was paid to Mr. Lokesh Shah Prop. M/s. Ritu Construction, Jaipur for construction of first floor and Rs. 1,01,700/- was paid to contractor Shri Ghasilal Kumawat for boundary wall of the plot. During the year under consideration, the assessee has sold shares of various companies and loss adjusted against the capital gain. 3. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, after discussion and considering the details/ information placed on file, the returned income of Rs. 1,86,420/- is accepted and assessed to tax.'' It is manifest from the scrutiny assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act that the AO has duly considered the releva....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s 35B was not originaly allowed at all. Thereafter, on assessee's application an order was passed by the CIT(A), Jalandhar, in which he directed certain allowances to be given on proportatione basis after verification of the assessee's claim u/s 35B. The AO thereafter entertained assessee's prayer for rectification of the order and allowed the assessee's claim in respect of matters like coloured albums, export staff travelling expenses, export sales commission, ECGC, foreign dealers visiting expenses. Rectification u/s 154 can only be made when glaring mistake of fact or law has been committed by the officer pasing the order becomes apparent from the record.. Rectification is not possible if the question is debatable. Moreover, the point which was not examined on fact or in law cannot be dealt as mistake apparent on the record. The dispute raised a mixed question of fact and law. The Tribunal was in error in upholding the assessee's claim for weighted deductions. There is no point in sending the matter to the High Court to deal with the question raised at this stage. We treat the question as referred to this Court and answer the question in the negative ....