9911796707
TMI Blog1973 (8) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to us for our opinion: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case it was competent for the Income-tax Officer to pass orders under section 154 on the ground that there was a mistake apparent from the record ?" The question arises in the following circumstances: The relevant assessment years are 1962-63 and 1963-64. In the course of that year the Income-tax Officer, while working out the capital employed for the purpose of section 84, added Rs. 1,15,807, being half of the profit of the relevant accounting year. Similar addition was made for the assessment year 1963-64 when an amount of Rs. 1,93,628, being half the share of the profit, was added for purposes of ascertaining the average amount of the capital. The capital ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay High Court in Burmah-Shell Refineries Ltd. v. G. B. Chand, Income-tax Officer, held that it was a debatable question and, therefore, allowed the appeal. At the instance of the Commissioner, the question set out above has been referred to us. On behalf of the revenue, it was pointed out to us that it is under rule 19 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, that for purposes of giving benefit to the assessee under section 84 as it then stood at the relevant time, the average amount of the capital has to be computed and that computation is to be made according to clause (1). Now, clause (5) of the said rule 19, which is relevant for the purposes of determination of the question, provides as under: " (5) For the purpose of ascertaining the averag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uled as under: "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 conceivably be two opinions .... A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record." Therefore, in construing clause (5) of rule 19, we do not think that it can be suggested for a moment that necessarily there would not be a long drawn process of reasoning or another facet of the question. The point is, whether in working out the average amount of capital the deeming fiction of providing for the profit is really debatable or not. In that view of the matter, therefore, it cannot be said, as has been taken for grant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
