9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (7) TMI 118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rat High Court in Bardolia Textile Mills v. ITO [1985] 151 ITR 389. The ITO also noted that the Department had not filed Special Leave Petition against that order of the High Court. However the ITO held that Kerala High Court had taken a different view on the point in controversy in CIT v. G.B. Transports [1985] 155 ITR 548 (FB) and as such the point in controversy was debatable. He therefore, refused to exercise his powers under section 154 and grant interest under section 214 of the Act in conformity with the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Bardolia Textile Mills. In the appeal filed by the assessee the AAC held that the ITO was bound by the decision of Gujarat High Court referred to above and as such interest should hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iators v. CIT [1987] 165 ITR 178 in support of the submission that mistake in such cases would come in the category of mistake apparent from record. 4. I have considered the rival submissions and facts on record. It is an admitted position before me that on the date when the ITO gave effect to the order of the CIT(A) the decision of Gujarat High Court in Bardolia Textile Mills was applicable. Consequently, while giving effect to the order of the CIT(A) the ITO was bound to grant interest under section 214 in conformity with the said decision of the Gujarat High Court. The ITO omitted to grant the interest while giving effect to the order of CIT(A). Under such circumstances the mistake in the order of the ITO must be regarded as mistake a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and is otherwise in order. In view of this Circular which is beneficial and as such which is bound to be given effect to, the above mentioned decision of Calcutta High Court has been rendered ineffective. As regards the remaining three decisions which have been cited on behalf of the Department, I find that in two of them what has been laid down is that rectification on point of law was not permissible when there was conflict of decisions. Ours is not a case of that type. As already stated there, was a decision of jurisdictional High Court on the date when the ITO passed the order and the mistake in the order of the ITO is in not following the binding decision. In V.R. Sonti's case which has been cited on behalf of the Department, there is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
