9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 288X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -tax Tribunal is right in holding that the rectification order under section 154 was not proper especially when the audit had raised an objection that the interest income of Rs. 2,14,457 was to be brought to tax under the head ' Income from other sources'? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Tribunal is right in not considering the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pandian Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT [2003] 262 ITR 278, wherein it was held that the interest income has to be considered as income from other sources and that of the Punjab and Haryana Full Bench in the case of CIT v. Smt. Aruna Luthra [2001] 252 ITR 76 which had held that proceedings for rectification of an order can be initiated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... holding that the debatable issues should not be rectified under section 154 of the Income-tax Act. Not satisfied with the order of the Tribunal, the present appeal is filed by formulating the abovesaid three questions of law. 3. Learned standing counsel for the Revenue argued that the language employed in section 154 of the Income-tax Act is very wide in its amplitude and it should be construed to encompass in it any mistake apparent from the record. In order to sustain the case of the Revenue, the decision of the Supreme Court in Pandian Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT [2003] 262 ITR 278 and the decision of the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. Aruna Luthra [2001] 252 ITR 76 have been relied upon. 4. We hea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng 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, which is not amenable for rectification under section 154 of the Income-tax Act. 8. A Division Bench of this court in the case of CIT v. Sharp Industries [2006] 282 ITR 336, in which one of us (P. P. S. Janarthana Raja J.) was a party, while considering the question of law as to "whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee therein was entitled to deduction in respect of interest income under sections 80HHC and 80-I of the Income-tax Act", has held that interest income is eligible for special deduction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uestion in favour of the Department and against the assessee. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court rendered the meaning to the phraseology "derived from" employed under section 80HH and held that the interest derived by the industrial undertaking of the assessee thereon on the deposits made with the Electricity Board for the supply of electricity for running the industrial undertaking could not be said to flow directly from the industrial undertaking itself and was not profits or gains derived by the undertaking for the purpose of special deduction under section 80HH. Hence, the decision is no way helpful to resolve the point in issue in this case. 11. The Full Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
