Commissioner of Income Tax vs Madras Fertilisers Ltd.

R. Jayasimha Babu, J.—The questions referred to us at the instance of the Revenue are,

"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the recomputation of disallowance u/s 40A(5) made by the Assessing Officer in an order u/s 154 is not valid as the matter involved is a debatable point ?

Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that during the period of pendency of reference applications before the High Court, the Assessing Officer''s action in rectifying the assessment according to the Appellate Tribunal''s decision would fall beyond the scope of Section 154 ?"

The assessment years are 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76.

The assessee-company had a managing director who was a foreigner the terms of whose service with the company has been approved by the Government of India. The remuneration and perquisites paid to him were considered for disallowance u/s 40A(5) of the Act while making the assessment. After allowing a deduction of Rs. 72,000 admissible u/s 40A(5) of the Act, the Assessing Officer added back the balance sum of Rs. 79,465. In appeal, the assessee''s contention that the amounts exempt u/s 10(6)(viia) of -the Act were excluded from the operation of Section 40A(5) of the Act by virtue of Sub-clause (b) thereof, was accepted by the Appellate Commissioner who directed the Assessing Officer to accept the claim made by the assessee. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made an order on December 29, 1984, excluding the entire salary paid to the managing director. Subsequently, he made an order on October 10, 1986, u/s 154 of the Act limiting the exemption u/s 10(6)(viia) of the Act to Rs. 48,000 and added back the sum of Rs. 1,51,465.

The assessee appealed against that order of rectification and contended that the Assessing Officer had exceeded his jurisdiction as there was no mistake apparent on the face of the record in the earlier order and that the issue in this case was a debatable one. The assessee''s appeal was rejected by the Commissioner. However, the assessee''s stand was upheld by the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the argument that was put forth for the Revenue that the Tribunal had earlier made an order in the case of another assessee which had interpreted Section 40A(5)(b) and that the rectified order made by the Assessing Officer was in conformity with the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal while rejecting the argument held that the interpretation given by it earlier had become the subject matter of the reference to the High Court. That issue continued to remain debatable and therefore such a debatable issue could not be regarded as a mistake apparent on the face of the record.

The scope of Section 40A(5) of the Act and the extent to which the amounts exempt u/s 10(6)(viia) have to be considered for the purpose of computation u/s 40A(5) were indeed debatable at that time. This court laid down the law in relation thereto only in the year 1997 in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Lucas Tvs Limited., .

The Assessing Officer therefore could not have regarded a debatable issue as a mistake apparent from the face of the record for invoking his power u/s 154 of the Act.

The questions therefore are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.