BITHAL DAS MODI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following questions of law under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for opinion to this Court :

(2.) The present reference relates to the asst. yr. 1978-79.

(3.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows : The applicant is being assessed to income-tax in the status of an individual. He is engaged in practising naturopathy at Gorakhpur. For the previous year ending 31st Dec., 1977, which is relevant to the asst. yr. 1978-79, the assessment was completed on 26th Aug., 1981. In respect of certain borrowings the claim of interest was disallowed by the AO on the ground that a similar claim was not found to be admissible in the immediately preceding year, i.e., asst. yr. 1977-78. After completion of the assessment for the asst. yr. 1978-79, the Tribunal has held for the asst. yr. 1977-78 that the disallowance of interest should be limited to the extent of interest due on the debit balance that has appeared in the account of K.M. Modi and C.M. Modi. Since disallowance of interest in the asst. yr. 1978-79 was linked with the similar disallowance in the immediately preceding year, i.e., 1977-78, in which year only a part of the claim was found to be allowed by the Tribunal, the applicant moved a petition under Section 154 of the Act requesting the AO to limit the disallowance to the extent only to which it has been found to be disallowable by the Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal for the asst. yr. 1977-78 has become final. The ITO has rejected the application filed under Section 154 of the Act. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant preferred an appeal before the AAC, who found merit in the contention and granted requisite relief under Section 154 of the Act. The. Revenue, feeling aggrieved, preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the scope of the Tribunal's order dt. 5th May, 1983, could not have been extended to mean that there was a mistake in the subsequent year also. The Tribunal held that its order was operative and binding on the Revenue authorities for the year for which it rendered its decision, i.e., for the asst. yr. 1978-79 and on that basis it could not be said that there was any mistake apparent on record for the asst. yr. 1977-78. The Tribunal also held that where two opinions were possible which required adjudication, provisions of Section 154 could not be applied. The Revenue's appeal was allowed by the Tribunal.