9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 288X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The judgment of the court was delivered by K. Raviraja Pandian J.- The appeal is filed raising the following substantial questions of law : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Tribunal is right in holding that the deduction under section 10B as well as under section 80HHC could not be rectified under section 154? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Tribunal is right in holding that the rectification order under section 154 was not proper especially when the audit had raised an objection that the interest income of Rs. 2,14,457 was to be brought to tax under the head ' Income from other sources'? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctified the assessment order by his order dated March 19, 2004, as proposed in the notice. The appeal filed by the assessee in I. T. A. No. 63 of 2004-05 before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), questioning the correctness of rectification of assessment under section 154 was dismissed on February 25, 2005. The assessee filed further appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in I. T. A. No. 1154 of 2005. The Tribunal allowed the appeal by holding that the debatable issues should not be rectified under section 154 of the Income-tax Act. Not satisfied with the order of the Tribunal, the present appeal is filed by formulating the abovesaid three questions of law. 3. Learned standing counsel for the Revenue argued that the lang ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an error apparent on the face of the record, while the first could be corrected by the higher forum, the latter only could be corrected by exercise of power of rectification. 7. The scope and amplitude of section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has been considered by the Supreme court in the case of T. S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Brothers [1971] 82 ITR 50 wherein it was 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 on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record, which is not amenable for rectification under section 154 of the In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. v. CIT [2003] 262 ITR 278, we are of the view, is not helpful to the Revenue on the point in issue, whether a debatable issue can be rectified by invoking section 154 of the Income-tax Act. That was a case in which the High Court while considering the issue, "whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the interest on deposits with the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board should be treated as income derived by the industrial undertaking for the purpose of section 80HH", answered the question in favour of the Department and against the assessee. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court rendered the meaning to the phraseology "derived from" employed under section 80HH and held that the interest derived by the industrial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
