9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RTHANA RAJA JJ. Mrs. Pushya Sitaraman, for the Appellant. JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was delivered by P. P. S. Janarthana Raja, J. - This appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Revenue, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A', Chennai in I.T.A. No.1479/Mds/2002 dated 28.02.2006, raising the following substantial questions of law:- "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that rectification of the deduction granted by taking the correct figure from the audit certificate produced by the assessee is a debatable issue, not permissible u/s 154? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficer, there was a mistake crept in the assessment order and hence, he issued notice under Section 154 of the Act and rectified the assessment order. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The C.I.T.(A) dismissed the appeal and held that the Assessing Officer has rightly rectified the Assessment Order based on the definition of book profit under Section 115JA of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ("Tribunal" in short). The Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the C.I.T.(A). Hence the present tax case by the Revenue. 4. Learned Sr. Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that there is a mistake on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee is allowed." 6. From a reading of the above, it is seen that the issue is debatable and also there are diverse opinions on the issue taken by various Income-tax Appellate Tribunals. Once the issue is a debatable one, the same cannot be rectified under Section 154 of the Act. The Supreme Court, in the case of T.S. Balaram, Income-tax Officer, Company Circle IV, Bombay Vs. Volkart Brothers and Others, [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC), held that 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 or examining arguments on points where there may conceivably be two opinions. It has also been held that a mistake apparent from the record must be a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
