ITA No.128 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No.128 of 2007 Date of decision: 29.1.2008 The Commissioner of Income tax, ......Appellant Bathinda Versus M/s Kartar Singh & Co. Govt. Contractors, Ferozepur Cantt. ......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate for the appellant-revenue. Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the respondent-assessee. * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J . The revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 challenging the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar passed in ITA No.54(ASR) 2004 dated 19.9.2006 (Annexure P-6) which has allowed the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 1996-97. It has raised the following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT was right in law in implying that section 154(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which refers to an order passed u/s 154(1), also covers an order passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT was right in law in implying that interest and salary to members of an Association of Persons (AOP) were admissible, keeping in view the provisions of section 184(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ITA No.128 of 2007 2 even as they stood prior to amendment by the Finance Act, 2003, with effect from 1.4.2004? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT was right in law in implying that the mistake in making assessment as a firm and not as an Association of Persons (AOP) while resorting to the provisions of section 144 is not a mistake of law apparent from the record, keeping in view the specific provisions of section 184(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:- The facts of the case are that the assessee filed the original return of income on 31.10.1996 in the status of Registered firm. However, while completing the assessment u/s 144, the AO did not allow deduction of interest and salary paid to partners. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) where the action of the AO for not allowing deduction in respect of interest and salary paid to partners was inter-alia challenged. It was argued before the CIT(A) that the assessee was entitled to deduction of interest and salary paid to partners even though income was computed by applying net profit rate. Accepting the contention of the assessee, the Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the claim of the assessee for deduction of interest and salary paid to partners. The revenue challenged the order of CIT(A) in appeal before the Tribunal. The ITAT vide its order dated 13.11.2003 (Annexure A-3) in ITA No.135/ASR/2000 for the assessment year 1996-97 upheld the order of the CIT(A) by relying on the judgement of Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jain Construction Co. & others(2002) 245 ITR 527 (Rajasthan) held that the assessee was entitled to deduction in salary and ITA No.128 of 2007 3 interest to the partners upto the limit specified in section 40(b) of the Act. Subsequently, the AO noted that since the assessment was completed under Section 144 of the Act, the status of the firm was required to be taken as an AOP within the meaning of sub-section (5) Section 184 of the Act. The AO observed that since this was a mistake apparent from record, the same required to be rectified. Accordingly, the AO issued a notice under Section 154 on 17.10.2002 proposing to rectifiy the order under Section 154 and to treat the status of the assessee as an AOP, in consequence thereof to disallow interest and salary paid to partners. The AO issued show cause notice on 17.10.2002. In response to the notice, the assessee submitted a reply that the issue being debatable, the same fell outside the scope of provision of section 154. However, the AO rejected the objection and rectified the order under Section 154 and again disallowed the claim for deduction of interest and salary paid to partners. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT (A). It was submitted before the CIT(A) that once the Tribunal had already decided the matter in favour of the assessee and against the revenue, the order passed by the AO under Section 154 was illegal and bad in law. It was further submitted that the issue involved in the case being debatable, the same fell outside the scope of provisions of Section 154 of the Act. However, the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the submissions of the assessee and held that since the assessment was completed u/s 144, the status of the assessee was required to be taken as an AOP. This being a mistake of law apparent from record, the AO was held to be justified in rectifying the same under Section 154 of the Act. Feeling aggrieved against the said order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the assesssee filed appeal before the Tribunal which was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 19.9.2006. The ITA No.128 of 2007 4 relevant part of the order of the Tribunal is as under:- “We have heard both the parties at some length and given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions, examined the facts, evidence and material placed on record. The undisputed facts of the case are that the assessment in this case was completed u/s 144 in the status of Registered firm. However, the assessee was not allowed deduction of interest and salary paid to partners because the income was computed by net profit rate of 12.5%. Admittedly, the AO did not take into account the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 184 of the Act then in existence as per which the firm was to be assessed in the manner as an A.O.P. It is also a fact that the issue for deduciton of interest and salary paid to partner was subject matter of dispute both before the CIT(A) and the ITAT and the Tribunal vide its order dated 13.11.2003(supra) allowed the claim of the assessee for deduction of interest and salary paid to partners and upheld the order of the CIT(A). Thus, it can not be said that claim of the assessee for deduction of interest and salary paid to partners was not considered by the CIT(A) and the ITAT. As per provisions of sub-section (1A) of Sec.154 where any matter has been considered and decided in any proceeding by way of appeal or revision, the authority passing such order can rectify such mistake only in respect of an issue which has not been considered by the Appellate Authority. It is true that the Tribunal did not consider the claim of the assessee for deduction of ITA No.128 of 2007 5 salary and interest paid to partners in the light of provisions of section 184(5) of the Act in a case where assessment was made u/s 144. Nevertheless the effect of finding of the Tribunal is that the assessee was allowed deduction of interest and salary paid to partners. Now the AO was not competent to rectify the assessment order which had the effect of nullifying/negating the order of the Tribunal. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the order passed by the AO u/s 154 was illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed on this point itself. At the time of completing the assessment u/s 144 the AO did not take into account the provisions of Section 184(5) in a case where the assessment was made u/s 144 perhaps for the reason that even on merits, he did not allow deduction of interest and salary paid to partners. Nevertheless he completed the assessment in the status of Registered Firm. Even otherwise, we find that as per provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 184, then existing in the statute for the relevant asstt. year, the AO could assess the firm in the same manner as an AOP. However, there was no specific provision for disallowing salary and interest paid to partners. The specific provision for disallowing salary and interest paid to partner in a case where assessment has been completed u/s 144 has been made applicable only w.e.f. 1.4.2004 by way of an amendment. Now whether the deduction of interest and salary paid to ITA No.128 of 2007 6 partners could be disallowed or not in a case where assessment was completed u/s 144 and more particularly where such claim of deduction has specifically been allowed by the Tribunal or not was highly debatable issue. As per provisions of Sec.154, the authority concerned is competent to rectify only such mistake of law or facts which are apparent from record and all those issues which are debatable and involve prolonged arguments, debate where two conceivable views are possible fall outside the scope of provisions of section 154 of the Act. Reliance in ths regard on the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balaram, ITO vs. Volkart Brothers, 82 ITR 50. Therefore, even on this ground, the order passed by the AO is liable to be quashed.” We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The undisputed facts of the case are that the assessment in this case was completed u/s 144 in the status of Registered firm. However, the assessee was not allowed deduction of interest and salary paid to partners because the income was computed by net profit rate of 12.5%. Admittedly, the AO did not take into account the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 184 of the Act then in existence as per which the firm was to be assessed in the manner as an A.O.P. It is also a fact that the issue for deduction of interest and salary paid to partner was subject matter of dispute both before the CIT(A) and the ITAT and the Tribunal vide its order dated 13.11.2003(supra) allowed the claim of the assessee for deduction of interest and salary paid to partners and upheld the order of the CIT(A). Thus, it can not be said that claim of the assessee for deduction of interest ITA No.128 of 2007 7 and salary paid to partners was not considered by the CIT(A) and the ITAT. No doubt, the Tribunal while passing the order dated 13.11.2003 did not consider the claim of the assessee for deduction of salary and interest paid to the partners in the light of provisions under Section 184(5) of the Act in a case where assessment was made under Section 144 yet the effect of finding of the Tribunal in the order dated 13.11.2003 is that the assessee was allowed deduction of interest and salary paid to the partners. As per provisions of Section 154, the authority concerned is competent to rectify only such mistake of law or facts which are apparent from record and all those issues which are debatable and involve prolonged arguments and from the debate where two conceivable views are possible and fall outside the scope of provisions of section 154 of the Act. In the present case, the AO was not competent to rectify the assessment order which had the effect of nullifying the order dated 13.11.2004. At the time of completing the assessment under Section 144 the AO did not take into account the provisions of Section 184(5) in a case where the assessment was made under Section 144 may be for the reason that even on merits, he did not allow deduction of interest and salary paid to partners. Nevertheless, he completed the assessment in the status of Registered Firm. Even otherwise, as per provisions of sub- section (5) of Section 184, then existing in the statute for the relevant assessment year, the AO could assess the firm in the same manner as an AOP as there was no specific provision for disallowing salary and interest paid to partners. The specific provision for disallowing salary and interest paid to the partners in a case where assessment has been completed u/s 144 has been made applicable only w.e.f. 1.4.2004 by way of an amendment. Thus, the issue whether the deduction of interest and salary paid to the partners could be disallowed or not in a case where assessment was completed u/s 144 and more particularly where such claim of ITA No.128 of 2007 8 deduction has specifically been allowed by the Tribunal is highly debatable issue which falls outside the scope of provisions of section 154 of the Act. Thus, in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and the legal position discussed above, we are of the opinion that this appeal has no merit and no substantial question of law arises for the determination of this Court. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE January 29, 2008 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) ps JUDGE