TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 471X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als of the assessee on the ground that the orders passed under section 143(1)(a) could not be the subject-matter of rectification under section 154, as the question raised is a debatable one. 2. The assessee filed returns of income disclosing a loss and a book profit under section 115J of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The returns were con-sidered and processed under section 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 per cent. of book profit by wrongly applying section 115J(2). Treating this as a mistake apparent on record, proceedings were initiated under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Aggrieved by the orders of recti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; as such, the orders of the Assess-ing Officer as well as the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) were totally erroneous. 3. By order dated October 28, 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 recti-fication were totally unsustainable. The Tribunal took the view that at the time the intimation under section 143(1)(a) and the order under section 154 was passed, the issue was a debatable one ; as such, the Tribunal held that what could not have been a possibility under section 143(1)(a) could not be done by invoking section 154. The Tribunal further pointed out that this court rendered a decision on No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cord amenable for correction or rectification under section 154. Consequently, the Revenue submitted that the view of the Tribunal merits to be reversed. 5. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal shows that the return was origi-nally processed under section 143(1)(a) on September 18, 1991. Subse-quently, on May 31, 1993, the order of intimation was rectified taking the view that there were no provisions under section 115J(2) to reduce the 30 per cent. book profit from the available profit for setting off and carried for-ward losses. Against this order dated May 31, 1993, the assessee preferred appeals before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 6. Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the decision of this court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er section 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 under section 154. An apparent error must be one which is glaring, obvious or self-evident mistake. The debatable issue can-not be a ground for invoking jurisdiction under section 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 await-ing decisions before the court of law. An issue, which required a long pro-cess of reasoning and where there are already conflicting views, cannot offer a platform for a resort to section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
