TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (2) TMI 38
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ptember 7, 1993, reported in [1993] 204 ITR 412, the income-tax authorities contended that as per the interpretation of law made by the apex court certain deductions were not admissible and therefore there, was "a mistake apparent from the record" and therefore rectifiable under section 154 of the Income-tax Act. Accordingly, notices dated January 16, 1995, for both the aforesaid assessment years under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were issued to the petitioner. It is these notices which are under challenge in this writ petition on the ground, inter alia, that the same were issued without jurisdiction and therefore bad and liable to be quashed. Dr. Pal, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner, submitted that in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., in our opinion, cannot be said to have retrospective operation in the sense that although a debate or doubt or a conflict of judicial opinion is resolved and settled by the Supreme Court, yet still that does not obliterate the existence of such debate or doubt or conflict that existed prior to the decision of the Supreme Court setting at rest such debate or doubt or conflict." Dr. Pal also drew the attention of this court to Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides for review on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. Dr. Pal submitted that by the 1976 Amendment an Explanation was added which reads as follows: "The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the court i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Code of Civil Procedure. This decision, with great respect to the learned judges, is per incuriam since they failed to notice the Explanation quoted hereinabove. He also drew attention of this court to the case of B.V.K. Seshavataram v. CIT [1994] 210 ITR 633 (AP), wherein a Division Bench took the view that a subsequent exposition of law by the apex court may afford a ground for reopening the assessment on the ground of mistake apparent on the face of the record. This court is unable to accept the proposition that Parliament intended that mistake on the face of the record for the purpose of review under Order 47 cannot be based on a subsequent exposition of law by the apex court while mistake apparent on the record for the purpose of reop....