2023 (3) TMI 405 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification of mistake u/s 154 - Levy of interest u/s 234E - Processing of statements of tax deducted at source u/s 200A - Scope of amendment to section 200A(1) of the Act by insertion of clause (c) thereto by Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015 - HELD THAT:- Appeals in the instant case arise not out of Intimations under section 200A(1) r/w s. 234E of the Act, but u/s. 154 of the Act, denying the assessee’s claim for cancelling such levy. As also the fact that there is a conflict of judicial opinion in the matter, with contrary decisions as in Fatheraj Singhvi v. UoI [2016 (9) TMI 964 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] so that the matter cannot be regarded as a mistake of law per se, justifying rectification u/s. 154 of the Act.

Reference in this context may also be made to the decision in CIT v. Aruna Luthra [2001 (8) TMI 84 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] We are, therefore, not in agreement with the ld. CIT(A), who has distinguished the former decision as well as in Laxmndas Bhatia Hingwala Pvt. Ltd [2010 (12) TMI 105 - DELHI HIGH COURT] cited before him by the assessee, as being in respect of the power u/s. 254(2) of the Act.

His reliance for the purpose on the decision in the case of CIT v. South Indian Bank Ltd. [2000 (12) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT] and CIT v. Hero Cycles Ltd. [1997 (8) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT], is misplaced. The same stand pursued to find as ousting debatable issues from the purview of s. 154. The decision by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court is binding within it’s territorial jurisdiction, settling the issue for that jurisdiction. Any order inconsistent therewith is thus to be necessarily regarded as mistaken. It would have been a different matter if only the decisions by the Hon’ble Karnataka and Gujarat High Courts were available. Rather, in such a case, the latter having considered the former, it is the latter that would prevail.

We, therefore, find the orders by the Revenue authorities as not sustainable in law, i.e., for the State of Kerala. We, accordingly, have no hesitation in allowing assessee’s appeals inasmuch the processing is for a period prior to 01/6/2015. Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed.