1997 (7) TMI 53

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... was right in law in allowing the assessee's claim regarding interest due on sticky loans? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, be allowed at the prescribed percentage of the total income computed before allowing deduction under Chapter VI-A and also before taking into account the deduction allowable under section 36(1)(viii) itself?" When that application for reference was pending, the Revenue filed an application M. P. No. 19 of 1988 for rectifying the order of the Tribunal under section 254(2) relying upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in State Bank of Travancore v. CIT [1986] 158 I....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... A. No. 168 of 1988 for referring two questions to this court for consideration under section 256. The Tribunal passed an order on November 16, 1989, referring to this court three questions which read as follows : "1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in acquiring jurisdiction under section 254(2) of the Act on a point sought to be referred to the High Court in a reference application? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to rectify an admitted contentions (sic) and debatable matter under the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that interest on sticky loans ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....urt, the matter cannot be brought for rectification under section 254(2) on the ground that some binding judgment of the High Court or the Supreme Court was not placed before it earlier when the appeal was disposed of by it. The ruling of the Division Bench will not apply to the present case. When the Supreme Court has decided a matter on a question of law, it is the law of the land and it has to be followed by all the Tribunals and the courts in this country, vide article 141 of the Constitution of India. Hence, if the Tribunal had decided a matter overlooking the judgment of the Supreme Court on the question of law, it is certainly a mistake apparent from the record. Such a mistake can certainly be rectified under section 254(2) of the....