9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (2) TMI 84X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g question has been referred for the opinion of this court : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that there was a mistake apparent on the record which called for rectification by the Income-tax Officer, under section 154 ? " For the assessment years in question, the original assessments were completed in usual course. After the comple ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... may be noticed that the decision of the Tribunal which was relied upon by the assessee was not in the case of the assessee but in some other case. The Tribunal, however, relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of T. S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Brothers [1971] 82 ITR 50, came to the conclusion that the matter could be said to be debatable or in regard to which two views could pos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record. Reference was also made to a decision of the Bombay High Court in Sidhramappa Andannappa Manvi v. CIT [1952] 21 ITR 333. In the instant case, the question was whether deduction on account of payment of surtax by a company while computing its business income could be allowed. The decision of the Bombay Benc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal allowing the rectification application is contrary to the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Volkart Brothers' case [1971] 82 ITR 50. The fact that the question was highly debatable stands further reaffirmed in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Smith Kline and French (India) Ltd. v. CIT [1996] 219 ITR 581 holding that surtax levied under the Companies (Profits) Surtax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
