- (1.) THE assessee has preferred this appeal under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (in short, "the Act") against the order of the Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar passed in ITA No. 284/Asr/2006 for the asst. yr. 1988 -89.
(2.) FOLLOWING substantial questions of law have been proposed : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had erred in law by failing to appreciate that as the AO had deviated from the assessee's claim of non -leviability of interests under ss. 139(8) and 215/217 of the Act powers of the AO as per the post -amended provisions of s. 143(1) of the Act was a 'mistake of law' apparent from record which could be rectified under s. 154 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had erred in law by failing to appreciate that when undisputedly the leviability of interests under ss. 139(8) and 215/217 was a debatable issue, then the leviability of the same was beyond the scope of s. 143(1) of the Act -
(3.) AS per facts noticed in the impugned order of the Tribunal, the assessee in the return filed for the asst. yr. 1988 -89 appended a note that it was not liable to interest under ss. 139(8) and 215/217 of the Act on the ground that the return was filed in consequence of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ITO vs. Ch. Atchaiah (1996) 130 CTR (SC) dismissed. Against the said order, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The appellate authority accepted the claim of the assessee in view of the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in CIT vs. Prem Lata Jalani (2003) 185 CTR (Raj) 601 : (2003) 264 ITR 744 (Raj) with the observation that proper course for the AO was to issue notice under s. 143(2) of the Act. The Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, inter alia, held that application under s. 154 of that s. 154 of the Act could not be invoked where two views are possible. Reliance was placed on T. S. Balaram ITO vs. Volkart Bros. (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC) and CIT vs. Hero Cycles (P) Ltd. (1997) 142 CTR (SC) 122 : (1997) 228 ITR 463 (SC). It was also held that the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Premlata Jalani (supra) was distinguishable.;