The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 5616 (Jp-Trib) : (2020) 082 ITR (Trib) 0039

IN THE ITAT, JAIPUR BENCH

RAMESH C. SHARMA, A.M. & VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M.

Rohan Agarwal v. Asstt. CIT

ITA No. 51/Jp/2016

3 January, 2020

In favour of Assessee.

Assessee by: Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate

Department by: K. C. Gupta, Joint Commissioner

ORDER

Vijay Pal Rao, J.M.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the Order, dated 4-11-2015 of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), Ajmer for the assessment year 2009-10. Earlier the appeal of the assessee was disposed of by the Tribunal vide Order, dated 13-2-2018, however, subsequently in the Rohan Agarwal v. Asst. CIT (Miscellaneous Application No. 117/Jaipur/2018 vide Order, dated 7-5-2019) the Tribunal has recalled the earlier order for fresh hearing and adjudication of the appeal of the assessee. The relevant findings of the Tribunal in the miscellaneous application Order, dated 7-5-2019 in para 5 are as under :--

'5. Having considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record we note that the assessee has relied upon the various decisions as reiterated in the miscellaneous application. As regards to mistake No. 1 the copies of the decisions relied upon by the assessee are also on record of the appeal file and those decisions have some relevance on the issue of allowing the deduction under section 54F of the Act in respect of more than one plot of land and construction of a house. Since the Tribunal white passing the impugned order has not considered those decisions and the impugned order is completely silent about the decisions relied upon by the assessee. Therefore, in our considered view there is a mistake in the impugned order to the extent of not considering the decisions relied upon by the assessee. So far as the constructed area is concerned we find that the finding of the Tribunal is not based on the constructed area but only for recording the complete facts the per centage of the construction was mentioned in the impugned order. Even the assessing officer as well as the learned Commissioner (Appeals) while allowing the deduction in respect of the cost of one plot of land and construction of house has not taken the percentage of the covered area as ground for disallowance. However since the decisions relied upon by the assessee having relevance on the issue are not considered by the Tribunal, therefore, the said mis take is required to be rectified. Accordingly, the impugned Order, dated 13-2-2018 is recalled and the appeal of the assessee is directed to be listed for fresh hearing and adjudication after consideration of the decisions relied upon by the assessee.'

The assessee has raised the following grounds in this appeal :--

'1. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the allowance of the deduction claimed under section 54F up to Rs. 17,18,127 only as against the deduction claimed by the appellant of Rs, 46,93,353 and thus, thereby confirming the denial of deduction of Rs. 29,13,226. The confirmation of the part denial of the deduction made by the assessing officer, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, the rest amount of deduction also kindly be allowed.

SUBSCRIBE TaxPublishers.inSUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT