AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Chitra Venkataraman, J.—These appeals are preferred by the Revenue in respect of assessment years 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1990-91
against the orders of the Tribunal allowing the appeals of the assessee on the ground that the orders passed u/s 143(1)(a) could not be the subject
matter of rectification u/s 154, as the question raised is a debatable one.
The assessee filed returns of income disclosing a loss and a book profit u/s 115J of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The returns were considered
and processed u/s 143(1)(a). On going through the records, the Deputy Commissioner found that the profit available for adjustment had been
taken into account after reducing 30% of book profit by wrongly applying Section 115J(2). Treating this as a mistake apparent on record,
proceedings were initiated u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Aggrieved by the orders of rectification, the assessee preferred appeals before
the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) contending that while computing the income for the purposes of Section 115J, a portion of the
depreciation had not been allowed in the Assessment Years 1988-89 to 1990-91; that the said depreciation should be allowed to be carried
forward to successive assessment years. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), however, dismissed the assessee''s appeals on the ground
that the assessable loss had been determined in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, 30% of the book profit
was taken as deemed total income, as it was higher than the assessable income or loss under the provisions of the Act. The Commissioner of
Income Tax (Appeals) also took the view that it could not be assumed that the depreciation was not allowed to the extent of computation of the
book profit. The assessee preferred a Second Appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal contending that while computing the profit for the
purposes of Section 115J, the depreciation claimed was not allowed, which resulted in an assessment on a higher deemed income. The assessee
submitted that the extent of depreciation claimed not allowed for the purpose of Section 115J must be allowed to be carried forward in the
subsequent year. The assessee also contended that the issue sought to be touched u/s 143(1)(a) by taking recourse to proceedings u/s 154 was an
arguable issue; as such, the orders of the Assessing Officer as well as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) were totally erroneous.
By order dated 28th October 2002, the Tribunal passed a common order in respect of the Assessment Years 1988 89 to 1990-91 and
allowed the appeals of the assessee, taking the view that the orders passed on rectification were totally unsustainable. The Tribunal took the view
that at the time the intimation u/s 143(1)(a) and the order u/s 154 was passed, the issue was a debatable one; as such, the Tribunal held that what
could not have been a possibility u/s 143(1)(a) could not be done by invoking Section 154. The Tribunal further pointed out that this Court
rendered a decision on 19th November 2001 in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Fab Exports (P.) Ltd., on the question that even
where tax is levied on book profits, the loss and depreciation in the computation of statutory profits for the year would not be available for carry
forward and set off to the extent to which it is absorbed against statutory income of the year. The Tribunal held that the decision of this Court came
much later to the date when the orders u/s 143(1)(a) and Section 154 were passed; as such, the proceedings taken were totally unsustainable. The
Tribunal referred to the decision of the Apex Court reported in T.S. Balaram, Income Tax Officer, Company Circle IV, Bombay Vs. Volkart
Brothers, Bombay, , that a debatable issue could not be made a subject matter for taking recourse to Section 154.
Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue is on appeal before this Court contending that since the issue is now settled in favour of the Revenue
by the decision of this Court reported in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Fab Exports (P.) Ltd., as well as by the decision of the Supreme Court
reported in Karnataka Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore, , the law declared by
the Apex Court is presumed to have always been the law of the land. Consequently, the rectification proceedings taken were maintainable. The
Revenue contended that the application of wrong provision or an erroneous application of the provisions of the Act will amount to a mistake
apparent from the record amenable for correction or rectification u/s 154. Consequently, the Revenue submitted that the view of the Tribunal
merits to be reversed.
A perusal of the order of the Tribunal shows that the return was originally processed u/s 143(1)(a) on 18.9.1991. Subsequently, on 31.5.1993,
the order of intimation was rectified taking the view that there were no provisions u/s 115J(2) to reduce the 30% book profit from the available
profit for setting off and carried forward losses. Against this order dated 31.5.1993, the assessee preferred appeals before the Commissioner of
Income Tax (Appeals).
Learned Counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nonmag Wires
P. Ltd. reported in (2007) 292 ITR 557 as well as the order dated 31.1.2007 in T.C. No. 144 of 2003, wherein, under similar circumstances, this
Court held that in a case of adjustment u/s 143(1)(a), a debatable question of law cannot be a subject matter of rectification u/s 154. This Court
further held that the claim, which has to be considered on a debatable question, must necessarily be dealt with by the Officer under regular
assessment proceedings relevant under the Act. In those circumstances, learned Counsel for the assessee submits that the order of the Tribunal has
to be upheld on the limited question as to the availability of jurisdiction u/s 154.
A perusal of the order of the Tribunal shows that the Tribunal held that as on the date of the proceedings taken u/s 143(1)(a) as well as u/s 154,
admittedly, there was a dispute with reference to Section 115J book profit working and the carry forward of loss and the depreciation. The law on
the said question was settled by this Court on 19th November 2001 and again by the Supreme Court on 3rd December 2002. While there is no
dispute as to the proposition of law that the law declared dates back to the inception of the provisions, yet, with the uncertainty existing as on the
date when the proceedings u/s 143(1)(a) was subjected to Section 154, the jurisdiction u/s 154 is not available to correct the illegality in an
assessment. The exposition of law by the Supreme Court does not make an error as one apparent from the record for the authority to assume
jurisdiction u/s 154. An apparent error must be one which is glaring, obvious or self-evident mistake. The debatable issue cannot be a ground for
invoking jurisdiction u/s 154. It is not denied that there are provisions under the Act which permit the Revenue to take up and keep alive
assessments even on debatable issues which are awaiting decisions before Court of law. An issue, which required a long process of reasoning and
where there are already conflicting views, cannot offer a platform for a resort to Section 154 proceedings. In similar circumstances, in a decision
reported in 292 ITR 557 (Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nonmag Wires P. Ltd.) to which one of us is a party (Chitra Venkataraman, J.), this
Court held that a debatable issue on a point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record. Placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court
reported in T.S. Balaram, Income Tax Officer, Company Circle IV, Bombay Vs. Volkart Brothers, Bombay, , this Court held that ""a mistake
apparent on the record within the meaning of Section 154 of the Act must be ""obvious"" and ""patent"" and not something which could be established
by a long drawn process of reasoning of issues on points on which there may be more than one reason. A decision on a debatable point of law
certainly is not a mistake apparent from the record.
An impression formed on the scope of the provisions could not be a mistake or an error apparent from the record so as to justify the exercise of
jurisdiction u/s 154. The invoking of the provisions of Section 154 presupposes a mistake or an error which is patent or obvious and does not
involve a long drawn process of reasoning on a point which is already a debatable issue. Considering the fact that the decision of this Court was
available much later to the proceedings u/s 143(1)(a), we do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal to set aside the rectification
proceedings.
In the circumstances, we confirm the order of the Tribunal and thereby dismiss the Tax Cases. There will be no order as to costs.