Iqbal Chand Khurana vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income ...
1998 Latest Caselaw 161 Del

ORDER

M. K. CHATURVEDI, J.M. :

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A), New Delhi, and relates to the asst. yr. 1985-86.

2. We have heard the rival submissions. The return was due on 31st July, 1985. It was filed on 30th April, 1986. Interest under s. 139(8) of the Act charged for 8 months. Subsequently, by resorting to the provisions of s. 154 of the Act, interest was charged for 9 months. It was contended that the additional interest for one month cannot be charged by resorting to the provisions of s. 154. The delay was only for the completed 8 months. It was contended with reference to the decisions that interest cannot be charged for less than 30 days.

3. Before us, it was argued that if there exist cleavage of judicial opinion over a particular point, s. 154 cannot be resorted to. Our attention was invited on the decision of the apex Court rendered in the case of Poothundu Plantations (P) Ltd. vs. Agrl. ITO (1996) 221 ITR 557 (SC). In this case, it was held that only an apparent error can be rectified. The mistake apparent from 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. It is abundantly clear from the perusal of records that there exist a cleavage of judicial opinion on this point. As such, it cannot be construed to be an apparent mistake. In our opinion, in the facts of the present case, provision of s. 154 cannot be resorted to. We, therefore, decide this appeal in favour of the assessee.

4. In the result, appeal of the assessee, stands allowed.