Cit Vs. Devidayal Aluminium Industries

counsels: a.n. mahajan, for the revenue piyush agarwal, for the assessee head note: income tax rectification--debatable issueinvestment allowance and depreciationheld: withdrawal of investment allowance and depreciation by invoking section 154 on the ground of mistake apparent on record was rightly rejected by the tribunal because the question of allowability of investment allowance and depreciation was a debatable question and a decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from record. income tax act, 1961 s.154 in the allahabad high court v.m. sahai & krishna murari, jj. - indian penal code, 1860 [c.a. no. 45/1860]. section 302; [m.c. jain, r.c. deepak & k.k. misra, jj] murder plea as to accused being minor school register and transfer certificate not proved before court according to law held, it has to be ignored and question of age is to be determined on other evidence and circumstances surfacing on record. age determined on the basis of x-ray plates and report prepared by c.m.o., is the correct age of accused. accused was declared to be child on the date of commission of offence of murder. however, considering fact that now accused was around 41 years, he cannot be sent to approved school. accused was directed to pay fine of rs.25,000/- under section 302 i.p.c., amount of fine was directed to be paid as compensation to wife of deceased. mohammadorderwe have heard sri a.n. mahajan learned counsel for the applicant and sri piyush agarwal learned counsel for the respondents.2. additional depreciation of rs. 33,899 on the cost of computer was allowed to the assessee by the assistant commissioner of income tax under section 143(3) of the income tax act. subsequently he by order dated 9-3-1989 rectified the mistake under section 154 of the income tax act on the ground that the mistake was apparent from the record and withdrew the investment allowance and depreciation on care and computer. this order was challenged by the assessee before the commissioner of income tax who allowed the appeal on 17-6-1991. the department filed an appeal before the income tax appellate tribunal that had been dismissed on 26-7-1996. this income-tax application has been filed under section 256(2) of the act.3. the application filed by the department under section 256(1) of the act had been dismissed by the tribunal. the department filed an application under section 256(2) for calling of question of law. the tribunal has rejected the claim of the department. the tribunal has held that the question whether investment allowance and depreciation is a debatable question, therefore, it is not an error apparent on the face of the record. the apex court in ts. balaram ito v. volkart bros. : [1971]82itr50(sc) held as under :'a mistake apparent on the face of 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'.in view of the aforesaid judgment of the apex court, we do not find that this is a fit case to call for a question of law.4. the application is accordingly rejected.