Girish Chandra Gupta, J. - (1.) The petitioner is an assessee under the Income-tax Act, 1961. Assessment of the income of the petitioner for the assessment year 1988-89 was completed under Section 143(3) on March 4, 1991, and similarly for the assessment year 1989-90 on March 26, 1992, allowing relief under various provisions of the Income-tax Act. Based on a judgment of the apex court in the case of CIT v. N.C. Budharaja and Co., delivered on September 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.
(2.) Dr. Pal, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner, submitted that in the case of a retrospective legislation either by way of a fresh enactment or by way of amendment of the existing law, it can be contended that the retrospective legislation had always been the law but the same is not true in the case of a law laid down by the Supreme Court. In other words, the law laid down by the Supreme Court cannot have retrospective operation so as to afford any room for the contention that the law subsequently laid down by the Supreme Court had always been the law and therefore the deductions previously granted were unwarranted and therefore there was a mistake apparent on the record. In support of his submission, Dr. Pal relied on a Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of Jiyajeerao Cotton Mills Ltd. v. ITO [1981] 130 ITR 710, wherein a Division Bench of this court took the following view (page 731): "We are, however, unable to accept the contention of Mr. Pal that the principle of retrospective legislation is applicable to the decisions of the Supreme Court declaring the law or interpreting a provision in a statute. The law is laid down or a provision in a statute is interpreted by the Supreme Court only when there is a debate or doubt on the interpretation of any provision of a statute requiring interpretation by the Supreme Court or when there is a conflict of judicial opinion on a provision of a statute between the different High Courts of India which is required to be resolved and settled by the Supreme Court. The law laid down by the Supreme Court, 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."
(3.) 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 is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.";