TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1984 (4) TMI 46
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? " The facts giving rise to this reference briefly stated are that while making the assessment of the assessee, M/s. Chemical Limes, Jodhpur, for the assessment year 1964-65, the ITO charged interest under s. 139 of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter called " the Act"). The assessee thereupon filed an application under s. 154 of the Act for rectifying that order by waiving the interest under s. 139(8) of the Act. That application was, however, rejected on, October 3, 1970. The assessee again moved an application under s. 154 of the Act alleging that the earlier application under s. 154 of the Act had wrongly been rejected without considering the grounds mentioned in it and without hearing the applicant and praying ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 256(1) of the Act for referring the aforesaid question to this court and the learned members of the Tribunal being of the opinion that a question of law did arise out of their order dated October 10, 1973, referred the aforesaid question to this court. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material on record. The learned counsel for the assessee has also placed on record the copies of the application under s. 154 of the Act dated March 18, 1970, the order of the ITO, K-Ward, Jodhpur, dated October 3, 1970, the application for rectification dated December 3, 1970, the letter of the ITO dated February 16, 1972, the reply of the assessee dated March 15, 1972, and the letter of the ITO dated March 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssment and charging the interest, if the ITO had not considered the question of waiver of the interest under s. 139(8) of the Act, an application for rectifying that order by considering the question of waiver cannot be said to be incompetent. That application, however, appears to have been summarily rejected by the ITO by his order dated October 3, 1970, without considering the grounds raised in the application under s. 154 of the Act and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the assessee as is clear from the order passed by the ITO, K-Ward, Jodhpur, on October 3, 1970. That being so, the assessee could again file an application under s. 154 of the Act for rectifying the order passed on October 3, 1970, and also praying for the rect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....parent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record. Reference in this connection may be made to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T. S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Brothers [1971] 82 ITR 50. The ITO has certainly a discretion to waive the interest under s. 139(8) of the Act and when he finds that interest had wrongly been charged under s. 139, he could waive that interest by exercising his powers under s. 154 of the Act and rectifying the earlier order. In any case, the question whether he could have exercised hi....