2008 (9) TMI 646

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he petitioner is aggrieved by paragraphs 7.1 and 7.2 of Ext.P1(A). The said portions of Ext.P1(A) are quoted below for convenient reference. "7.1 Regarding Section 234A Interest: Since there was no delay in the filing of the IT return for the assessment years 1991-92, 1994-95 and 1995-96, no interest u/s 234A would be chargeable for these assessment years. For the assessment year 1992-93, we hold that no interest u/s 234A is chargeable in respect of the period of delay of 4 months in the filing of the Income Tax return, since there was a reasonable cause for this delay as the applicant had to face the action u/s 132 on 5-2-1992. However, for the assessment year 1993-94, the interest would be charged for the period of delay of 3 mont....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....date of application the matter regarding the ratio of decision in the case of CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala and Others was debatable and therefore, rectification was not possible as on the date of filing of Miscellaneous Petition by the Department." 4. The petitioner attacks the above decision contending that when there is a direct decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, the same can never be treated as a debatable point by Inferior courts and Tribunals, even assuming a Bench of two Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have raised doubts regarding the correctness of that decision. 5. Ext.P2(A) application was filed to correct the error in Ext.P1(A) regarding the terminal date for charging interest under Section 234....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Mr. K.R. Sudhakaran Pillai, learned Counsel who appeared for the 2nd respondent. 9. It is not seriously disputed that when an application for rectification is filed, within the permitted time limit, based on a subsequent decision of the Apex Court, directly on the point, normally, it has to be entertained. But, in this case, the Settlement Commission has rejected Ext.P2 on the ground that the issue raised is a debatable issue. But, I feel that when there is a decision of the Apex Court, no inferior court or Tribunal can say that the issue is a debatable issue for the reason that a Bench of two judges of the Apex Court has doubted the correctness of the decision of the Constitution Bench. Even assuming there is a final judgment of a....