TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 1806
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t by the assessee in the miscellaneous application are as under:- "3.1 Mistake1:Non consideration of the cited decision and the Written Submission etc.:At the outset, it is submitted, the appellant filed a detail Decision Paper Book during the course of hearing on 9th Feb. 2018 which, included the decision of various courts and coordinate benches of ITAT, including the Hon'ble Jaipur bench of ITAT as also a CBDT circular No. 6 dated 18/10/1993. However, the same, clearly appears to have escaped the kind attention of the Hon'ble ITAT in as much as there is no whisper of any of the decisions cited by the assesse through the said decision paper book, the written submission and also during the course of the appellate proceedings althou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s that cost of land is an integral part of the cost of the new house purchased/constructed. Thus, once the cost of the entire land has also been treated to a part of the new house, there was no reason why the AO should have seen the other plots as detached, and different." 3.2. Mistake 2: The Hon'ble ITAT at page 5 para 2.4 has also recorded a finding referring to the AO that a small building was constructed on Plot no. 4 which amounted to only 18% part of the plot. On this aspect following submissions were made: "9.1.3Covered matter:- This aspect of the above matter was directly covered in favour of the assessee by a decision of Hon'ble ITAT Jaipur bench in the case of Seema Singh Beniwal vs. DCIT in ITA No. 135/JP/2012, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the fact being contrary to the fact and submission already available on record.The assessee was never confronted on the aspect of the user by any of the authorities below i.e. neither by the AO and CIT(A) nor by the Hon'ble ITAT. On the contrary, the appellant itself made a detailed submission before the ld. CIT(A) in Para 8 (PB-70) wherein, it is submitted as under: "The assessee, in the present case, was already looking for a large sized plot so as to have a outhouse/farmhouse thereon, with a planning that maximum part of the land shall remain vacant for the purpose of cultivation/farming/lawn etc. and only a small part shall be having construction so that such property could be used for sparing weekends or can be used by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich are directly on the point that the assessee has purchased 4 adjoining plots and after covering of all the 4 plots with the boundary wall has constructed a house, therefore, the deduction U/s 54F of the Act is allowable in respect of cost of all the 4 plots and construction of house. Further size of house constructed by the assessee is not relevant part allowing the deduction U/s 54F of the Act, therefore, the observation of the Tribunal in para 5 that the assessee has constructed only 18% of the land is also against the precedent cited by the assessee. Thus, the ld. AR has submitted that there is apparent mistake in the impugned order so far as the decisions cited by the assessee are not considered by the Tribunal and therefore, the imp....