TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1268X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessment made under the Act for the assessment year for which such income is assessable. It is not in dispute that the income was assessed for the assessment year 2005-06. If such is the case, the question would be whether the assessing officer could have ignored Section 199. If the answer to the said question is in the negative, then the next question would be whether such order of assessment made under Section 143(1) could be rectified by invoking Section 154 of the Act. In CIT Vs. Sundaram Textiles Ltd [ 1984 (6) TMI 49 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] while considering the provisions of Section 154 of the Act it was held that the application of a wrong provision of the Act or the erroneous application of the same to the facts of the case whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -06 (Financial Year 2004-05). The assessee has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration: Whether the Learned Tribunal erred in law in observing that the issue under consideration regarding giving credit of Tax deduction at source in the year in which income is assessable was debatable when the on the contrary the issue actually involved application of a provision namely Section 199 of Income Tax Act, 1961 which squarely came within purview of section 154 and hence rectifiable? We have heard Mr. Ananda Sen, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Smarajit Roychowdhury, learned standing Counsel for the respondent department. The short question involved in this case is whether the assessi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee was beyond the scope of Section 154 of the Act. The assessee filed appeal against the said order before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal was of the view that the issue which was raised by the assessee was a debatable issue as two learned Members of the Tribunal had disagreed warranting reference to the third learned Member and, therefore, such debatable issue cannot be agitated in an application filed under Section 154 of the Act. Aggrieved by such order, the assessee is before us by way of present appeal suggesting the aforementioned substantial questions of law. After we have elaborately heard the learned counsel for the parties, we note that the effect of Section 199 of the Act was not considered. Partially, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the High Court of Mad in T. Manickavasagam Chettiar V. CIT [1983] 143 ITR 269 (Mad.) was followed. In T.S. Balaram ITO V. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC), the Hon ble Supreme Court held 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. The aforementioned decisions were taken note of by the High Court of Madras in the case of Commissioner of Wealth Tax V. Labh Kavvar Bai; [1999] 236 ITR 872 (Mad.). The facts of the said case is converse to the facts before us. The revenue had approached the High Court stating that in view of the definite provisions contained in Section 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
