B.N. Kirpal, J.
1. In respect of the assessment year 1963-64, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two question to this court :
'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessed company was entitled to rebate under section 141A (1) as inserted by the Finance Act, 1963 (No. 13 of 1963), with effect from April 1, 1963 on the payment made prior to January 1, 1964, as part of the tax determined to be payable on provisional assessment
2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the point was not debatable and the assessed was entiled to relief claimed under section 154 of the Act ?'
2. Briefly stated, the facts, as found by the Tribunal, are that, prior to December 31, 1963, the assessed filed it return of income for the assessment year 1963-64. A provisional assessment was made by the Income-tax Officer and a demand of Rs. 96,89,542 was raised. Fifty per cent. of this amount, viz Rs. 48,44,771, was paid by the assessed on November 20, 1963. For the balance 50 per cent., the assessed wanted time to make the payment. The Department allowed the application and two Installments were paid on January 21, 1964, and February 22, 1964.
3. The Income-tax Officer charged interest at two per cent. on 50 per cent of the demand which was paid after January 1, 1964.
4. After the assessment was made, an application under section 154 was filed. It was, inter alia, contended that on 50 per cent. of the tax which had been paid before December 31, 1963, the assessed was entitled to a rebate of one per cent. Under the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 141A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Officer did not accept this application as, in his opinion, in order to be entitled to the said rebated of one per cent., the assessed was required to pay to full amount of tax which was quantified by the provisional assessment.
5. The assessed filed an appeal against the said order passed under section 154 of the Act. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner came to the conclusion that there was no mistake which had been made which could be rectified under section 154 of the Act. He was of the opinion that a decision on a debatable point of law or failure to apply the law to set of facts which remain to be investigated cannot be corrected by way of rectification.
6. In the further appeal which as filed by the assessed, the Department raised a contention that the rebate of one per cent. was not allowable and, secondly, as the point in issue was debatable, no relief could be granted on an application filed under section 154 of the Act.
7. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the assessed was entitled to a rebate of one per cent. on 50 per cent. of the tax which has been paid prior to December 31, 1963. Curiously enough, the Tribunal, while noticing the Revenue's contention based on the interpretation of section 154 of the Act, did not deal with that contention. Thereafter, the aforesaid two questions of law has been referred to this court.
8. Section 141A was inserted for only one year, viz 1963-64. The said section is composed of three sub-sections. Sub section (1) of section 141A, inter alia, provided that, in a case a return of income is filed before that date, then a rebate of one per cent. on the tax paid would be granted. Sub-section (2) of section 141A dealt with the case where a return of income is filed after January 1, or no return of income is filed. This sub-section provided for two per cent. interest being charged on the tax which is finally determined. Sub-section (3) of section 141A dealt with a case where the return of income was filed before January 1, but the tax is not paid before that date. The said sub-section then contemplated interest at two per cent. being charged after giving credit for the tax already paid under the provisions of Chapter XVII-B or Chapter XVII-C of the Act.
9. None of the three sub-sections of section 141A categorically dealt with a case where part of the tax due is paid before December 31 and part thereafter. It is by interpreting section 141A that the Tribunal has sought to give relief to the assessed.
10. In our opinion, the answer to the question, viz., whether a rebate of one percent was due to the assessed or not, is not easy to find from a bare reading of the said section. The issue involved is not free from doubt. Under these circumstances, it is not possible for us to accept that an application under section 154 could be filed. Under section 154, if a mistake is committed then that error can be rectified. By an involved process or reasoning, a section cannot be interpreted and relief granted by invoking the jurisdiction under section 154 of the Act. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Balaram (T.S.) ITO v. Volkart Brothers : [1971]82ITR50(SC) , that a mistake apparent 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 conceivable two opinions. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record.
11. In the case of Volkart Brothers : [1971]82ITR50(SC) , the Supreme Court was concerned with the question whether the provisions of section 17 of the Act were applicable or not. The court held that the question whether the said section 17(1) of the Act of 1922 was applicable to the case of the firm was not free from doubt and it was not open to the Income-tax Officer to go into the true scope of the provisions of the Act in a rectification proceeding under section 154 of the Act.
12. In the present case, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner clearly held that this is not a case where the provisions of section 154 were applicable. The said contention was raised on behalf of the Revenue before the Tribunal but it chose not to deal with it. In our opinion, they question whether section 141A would enable the assessed to get a rebate of one per cent. on he amount of tax which was not the whole of the tax paid before December 31, 1963, was not free from doubt.
13. Applying the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Volkart Brother's case : [1971]82ITR50(SC) , it must follow that relief could not be granted to the assessed under section 154. It was open to the assessed to have filed an appeal against the assessment order whereby the relief under section 141A, as claimed by the assessed, was not granted. This relief could not be sought for by seeking to invoke the provision of section 154 specially when it is debatable as to whether the assessed can at all lay such a claim.
14. For the aforesaid reasons, our answer to question No. 2 is in the negative and in favor of the Revenue. In view of our answers to question No. 2, it is not necessary for us to deal with question No. 1, the answer to which has become academic.
15. There will be no order as to costs.