TMI Blog1992 (2) TMI 61X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he payment made prior to January 1, 1964, as part of the tax determined to be payable on provisional assessment ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the point was not debatable and the assessee was entitled to relief claimed under section 154 of the Act ? " Briefly stated, the facts, as found by the Tribunal, are that, prior to December 31, 1963, the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 1963-64. A provisional assessment was made by the Income-tax Officer and a demand of Rs. 96,89,542 was raised. Fifty per cent. of this amount, viz., Rs. 48,44,771, was paid by the assessee on November 20, 1963. For the balance 50 per cent., the assessee wanted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application filed under section 154 of the Act. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the assessee was entitled to a rebate of one per cent. on 50 per cent. of the tax which had been paid prior to December 31, 1963. Curiously enough, the Tribunal, while noticing the Revenue's contention based on the interpretation of section 154 of the Act, did not deal with that contention. Thereafter, the aforesaid two questions of law had been referred to this court. Section 141A was inserted for only one year, viz., 1963-64. The said section is composed of three sub-sections. Sub-section (1) of section 141A, inter alia, provided that, in case a return of income is filed before January 1 of the assessment year and the tax so determined on the bas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 154 of the Act. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Balaram (T. S.), ITO v. Volkart Brothers [1971] 82 ITR 50, that a mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record. In the case of Volkart Brothers [1971] 82 ITR 50, the Supreme Court was concerned with the question whether the provisions of section 17 of the Act were applicable or not. The court held that the question whether the said section 17(1) of the Act of 1922 was applicable to the case of the firm was not free from doubt and it was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
