C I T UDAIPUR Vs. HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE learned Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the revenue and affirmed the order setting aside the order passed by the Assessing Authority exercising powers under Section 154 of the Act. The learned Tribunal has relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in ITO Vs. Volkart Brother and Ors. reported in 1982 ITR 50, wherein it was held that a mistake apparent on the face of record must be an obvious and patent and not something, which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points, on which there may be conceivably two opinions. It was sought to be contended that in view of the CBDT Circular in case of reopening, the income cannot be assessed at a figure less than the returned income. It was found that Gujarat High Court had taken a view in case of Gujarat Gas Company Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 242 ITR 83 that Board's Circular cannot interfere with the independent exercise of power by the Assessing Officer. In that case, particular reference to the same circular was made. It was found by the learned Tribunal that in the present case, the assessment was made at a lesser figure, as a result of giving effect to the order of the CIT (Appeals ). In that view of the matter, the question, as to whether the order of the CIT (Appeal) was to prevail, or the CBDT order was to prevail, becomes a debatable question, and since power was invoked under Section 154 only on the basis of the order being contrary to the circular, therefore, it did involve a process of reasoning to arrive at a conclusion, as to whether the assessment at lower figure was rightly made, or not, i. e. whether it should be made as per the Circular, or as per the order of the CIT (Appeals ). That being the position, the jurisdiction under Section 154 for rectification was not available. In our view, the learned Tribunal was perfectly right in coming to the conclusions arrived at.

(3.) THE appeal thus, does not involve any substantial question of law. The same is, therefore, dismissed summarily.