2022 (3) TMI 662

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing grounds:- "1.1 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Bangalore has erred in adjudicating the order as passed by him. The order is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2.1 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Bangalore has erred in confirming the order passed under section 154 by the assessing officer as to allowing only Rs. 1,08,668/- towards loss as against the entire value of loss of Rs. 1,37,90,289/-. 2.2 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Bangalore has erred in computing the losses as well as denying losses to be carried forward to the extent of Rs. 1,36,81,621/-[1,37,90,289 less 1,08,668] 3.1 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Bangalo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ad 'income from house property'. The above sum included 1/5th of pre-construction period interest of Rs. 68,36,284. During the year, some balances relating to sundry creditors amounting to Rs. 41,332 were written off and offered to tax under the head 'income from other sources'. The loss from house property was set off against income from other sources to arrive at the net loss of Rs. 1,37,90,289 and this was carried forward. 3. The ACIT, CPC issued intimation u/s. 143(1) on 1.6.2013 wherein the losses of current year to be carried forward was determined at Rs. 1,08,668 as against loss of Rs. 1,37,90,289 carried forward in the return of income. The assessee filed rectification petition on 11.3.2014 seeking above correctio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Priyananki Singh Sood v. DCIT, 174 ITD 371 (Del). 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR submitted that there is no error in the orders of the revenue authorities as the assessee has not kept the commercial complex ready to let out. It was in the pre-commencement stage that interest was incurred by the assessee on loan availed for construction of the commercial building which is to be capitalized to the cost of the building and it cannot be allowed as deduction, since if the building is ready to let out, assessee has taken no steps to let out the same. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. In the present case, the assessee claim is to allow the interest of Rs. 1,38,31,621 incurred by the assessee on loan bo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s, this interest incurred by the assessee is to be capitalised to the cost of building, rather than the claim of deduction u/s. 24 of the Act. 7. Further, it is well settled that a mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions. In the present case, the Departmental authorities have categorically denied the that the construction of commercial building was completed and it was ready to let out and that assessee had taken steps to let out the property. These findings of the revenue authorities cannot be sought to be rectified in the rectification proceedings. Entertaining such a plea....