TMI Blog1977 (1) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner did not submit its return under section 139(1) of the Act. Notice was given under section 139(2) of the Act to file return. In spite of the notice the return was not filed. However, before the assessment and within the time allowed under section 139(4) of the Act, returns were filed. After the filing of the returns, there was assessment for both the years. The assessment order did not specifically state that any interest was to be charged for the late filing of the returns. The demand notice, however, indicated that the petitioner was to pay interest under section 139 of the Act. The demand notice was served in C.W.J.C. No. 653 of 1972 on 29th March, 1968. Thereafter, on 8th May, 1968, the petitioner filed an application unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment contended that Bahri Bros.'s case [1976] 102 ITR 443 (Pat) was distinguishable and the Delhi High Court in the case of Garg Co. [1974] 97 ITR 639 (Delhi) had not laid down the correct law. According to him, the correct law had been laid down by the Gauhati and Orissa High Courts in the cases of Ganesh Das Sreeram v. Income-tax Officer [1974] 93 ITR 19 (Gauhati) and Biswanath Ghosh v. Income-tax Officer [1974] 95 ITR 372 (Orissa). The other contention that was raised on behalf of the department was that the petitioner had filed application under section 154 of the Act. The aforesaid section envisages rectification of mistakes apparent from the record. Assuming that there was some mistake, the said mistake could not be said to be a mis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e-tax Act by Kanga and Palkhivala, fifth edition, volume I, page 719, as follows : " A decision on a debatable point of law or failure to apply the law to a set of facts which remain to be investigated cannot be corrected by way of rectification." Several cases have been mentioned as authority for the proposition. It would, therefore, appear that a debatable point of law cannot be said to be covered by section 154 of the Act. That the point involved in these cases is debatable is clearly apparent from the fact that different High Courts have taken different views on the point. In our view, therefore, section 154 of the Act was not applicable and the authorities below did not commit any error in not entertaining the application under se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
