It is saying that recognition of an asset or liability is appropriate if it is "a faithful representation" of two things:
- of that asset or liability;
- and of any resulting income, expenses or changes in equity.
It isn't always necessary to repeat a preposition in such a way, for example:
I went to the cinema with John and with David.
You wouldn't normally say this, you'd just say:
I went to the cinema with John and David.
Your example sounds like an excerpt from a legal document. Legal language is always about removing any trace of ambiguity, I suspect that is the reason for repeating "of" in yours.