TMI Blog1988 (11) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... two questions of law at the instance of the Department. They read thus : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought to have held that the levy of penal interest on the registered firm as if it were an unregistered firm was an error apparent on the face of the record and that the Income-tax Officer had jurisdiction to rectify the mistake under section 154 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee-firm as an unregistered firm in view of proviso (iii) (a) to section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Officer, after allowing the assessee an opportunity of being heard, enhanced the penal interest to Rs. 8,000 by rectifying the order under section 154 of the Act. Two contentions were raised before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Once penal interest was levied, it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt filed an appeal before the Tribunal and contended that the assessee having accepted the first order of levy of interest and in any event, the levy of interest being not appealable under section 246, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ought not to have entertained the appeal at all. The Tribunal, however, held that the appeal against the order under section 154 was maintainable under section 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on a point or points on which there may be conceivably two opinions. A decision on debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record. It is an admitted position that when the Income-tax Officer passed the impugned order under section 154 on July 26, 1972, there was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
