P.S.POTI, J. - (1.) THE scope of S. 154 of the IT Act, 1961, has been examined in T.S. Balaram, ITO vs. Volkart Brothers (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC) : TC53R.165, and the ITO in seeking to exercise the power of rectification under S. 154 cannot travel beyond such scope as indicated in the decision. A "mistake apparent on the record" must be an obvious and a patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on which there may 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.
(2.) 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 vs. Bharat Vijay Mills Ltd. (1985) 152 ITR 255 (Guj) : TC53R.190. The application of the same provision as that which had to be considered by the ITO here, (sic) in rectification in the earlier decision of this Court. The Court found in the approach made by the parties to the case that it could not be said that S. 154 could be applied. Evidently, the Division Bench which referred the case to the Full Bench felt that this would be a question for examination on the facts of each case and on the facts recorded by the Tribunal in this case, there is no scope for controversy that S. 154 would be attracted. We agree with the view indicated by the Bench which referred this case to the Full Bench. Ultimately whether, on the facts of the case, it is possible to say that there is a "disputed" question on which two views are possible would depend upon the approach to the case and the attitude of the parties in the case. If the parties do not feel that two views are possible, then, there is no scope for consideration of such a question. If computation, however, difficult it may be, is made by the ITO, with which computation or with which approach to the computation, the assessee has no grievance, what remains there for a Court to doubt the "power of rectification" one fails to understand. On the facts before us, that is the situation.
(3.) THERE are two questions for references: "(1)Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the ITO passed under S. 154 of the IT 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 asst. yrs. 1966 67 and 1967 68 without regular order, original or rectified, in this behalf for these years?" ;