K.A.PUJ, J. - (1.)THE revenue has filed this tax appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 1997 -98 proposing to formulate the following substantial questions of law for the consideration and determination of this Court:
A. Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal filed by the revenue on the ground of low tax effect ? B. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the addition of Rs. 1,38,422 made on account of short -term capital gains by resorting to rectification of the order under Section 154 of the Act was invalid ?

(2.)THIS Court has admitted the tax appeal on 24 -7 -2007 in terms of the above referred substantial questions of law.
This appeal was heard by us along with other cognate matters. Submissions were made by both the sides. So far as question (A) is concerned, we have passed a detailed order in Tax Appeal Nos. 1402 to1405 of 2007 (reported as CIT v. Concord Pharmaceuticals (2008) 14 DTK(Guj) J86 - -Ed.). We have decided the said tax appeal and the question paused therein was answered in affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. For the reasons stated and conclusion drawn therein, we answer question (A) in affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.

(3.)SO far as question (B) is concerned, the assessment was framed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act. Thereafter, on account of revenue audit, an objection was raised that the assessing officer has disallowed and added claim of Rs. 1,93.983 and again allowed short -term capital gain offered by the assessee under Section 50 of the Act to the tune of Rs. 1,38,422. On this basis, the assessing officer passed an order of rectification under Section 154 of the Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that there is no case of double benefit of set off and hence, there is no mistake which required rectification. On further appeal, the Tribunal upheld the said order. It is contended on behalf of the revenue that the Tribunal has overlooked that there was granting of dual benefit which was an error apparent on the record. The same could be rectified under Section 154 of the Act. The Tribunal has, therefore, erred in holding that there is no error by overlooking vital aspects of the claim made by the assessee with regard to the reduction of WDV of block of assets on sale of two trucks. In this view of the matter, the question (B) was proposed to be formulated by the revenue.