TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (9) TMI 281
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rein. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from ITA No. 42 of 2004. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") against the order dated 22.7.2003 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench "A", Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in M.A. No. 5/CHANDI/99 in ITA No. 1327/CHANDI/1995, for the assessment year 1992-93, claiming the following substantial questions of law:- "i) Whether the learned Tribunal is correct in law in passing the rectification orders impugned in the present appeal when the very basis of the rectification proceedings was debatable before this Hon'ble Court as well as Hon'ble Supr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tax 231 ITR 814 holding that the agricultural produce of its members as defined in Section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Act means that it should belong to its members and not that it should be produced by its members. The Tribunal following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kerala State Coop. Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd's case (supra) allowed deduction to the assessee for the income derived by it from marketing an agricultural produce of its members which belonged to them vide order dated 23.9.1998. The Parliament amended the provisions of Section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Act with retrospective effect from 1.4.1968 vide Income-tax (Second Amendment) Act, 1998 which came into force on 8.1.1999. The said amendment was challenge....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the retrospective amendment u/s 80P(2)(a)(iii), the assessee is not entitled for deduction. We feel that when the law is amended with retrospective amendment, the fiction is that all the authorities under the statute must proceed on the basis that the law at the relevant time was the law as amended subsequently with retrospective effect. That being so, the legal fiction is apparently capable of being carried forward to hold that when the earlier order was passed, it was passed in contravention of the amended law which by fiction is deemed to be in force at that time. This clearly is an error apparent on the face of the record. Section 80P(2)(a)(iii) has been amended with retrospective effect, i.e. w.e.f. 1.4.68. The apex court has upheld ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rovision suggests that the mistake should be apparent. It must be patent. It must appear ex facie from the record. It must not be a mere possible view. The issue should not be debatable. Mr. Sawhney contended that when the view taken by an authority is ex facie contrary to the decision of the jurisdictional High Court or a superior court, the case would fall within the mischief of section 154. However, Mr. Bansal submitted that while deciding a matter, an authority cannot anticipate the view that may be taken by the High Court or the Supreme Court on a subsequent date. If at the time of the passing of the order, the authority takes a particular view, which is not contrary to the existing interpretation of law, the provision of sec....