Commissioner of Income Tax vs Indian Glass Agency

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.—At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench "E", Delhi (in short, the "Tribunal"), u/s 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the "Act") :

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the failure of the Income Tax Officer to deduct borrowed money and liabilities from the gross value of the assets in the computation of capital for the purpose of Section 80J of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not a mistake apparent from the record in terms of Section 154 of the Act ?"

We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue. There is no appearance on behalf of the assessed in spite of notice.

Though the Tribunal Was justified in its conclusion that where there is a debatable point involved, Section 154 of the Act, would not be applicable, in view of the decision of the apex court in the case of Lohia Machines Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, ) , the point no longer remains debatable. Therefore, the provisions of Section 154 of the Act are clearly applicable to the present case. That being the position, we answer the question referred in the negative, in favor of the Revenue and against the assessed.

These references are, accordingly, disposed of.