1984 (4) TMI 30

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...." must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on which there may be conceivably be two opinions. Similarly, a decision on a debatable point of law cannot be said to be a " mistake apparent on the record ". Mere fact that a process of computation is involved in determining the income or the tax liability does not make it a debatable point, however involved the computation may be. A Division Bench of this court felt that reference to a larger Bench was called for and, therefore, directed such reference in view of the approach made in the judgment of this court in Addl. CIT v. Bharat Vijay Mills Limited, (I.T.R. No. 32 of 1974, decided on September 10, 1975 The applic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....icer passed under s. 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, holding that the said section was applicable? (2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the adoption of the figures of dividend declared in excess of 10 per cent. of the equity capital for the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68 without regular order, original or rectified, in this behalf for these years ? " To understand the question, it may be necessary to refer to a few facts. For the assessment year 1968-69, the assessee was assessed on a total income of Rs. 31,21,022 excluding capital gains. The assessee, was a domestic company. It was liable to pay additional tax at 7.5% under Paragraph of Item I(B) of Part I of Schedul....