Sh. Jasbir Singh, Ambala City v. ITO, Ambala

ITA 909/CHANDI/2011 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 26-12-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 90921514 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN BZWPS3886G
Bench Chandigarh
Appeal Number ITA 909/CHANDI/2011
Duration Of Justice 3 month(s) 13 day(s)
Appellant Sh. Jasbir Singh, Ambala City
Respondent ITO, Ambala
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 26-12-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 26-12-2011
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 13-09-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL: A BENCH: CH ANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA VP AND SHRI D.K.SRIVASTAVA AM ITA NO. 908/CHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SHRI JASPAL SINGH V. ITO WARD-3 S/O SHRI INDER SINGH AMBALA AMBALA PAN NO. BZWPS3886G ITA NO. 909/CHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SHRI JASBIR SINGH V. ITO WARD-3 S/O SHRI CHETAN SINGH AMBALA AMBALA CITY PAN NO. BZWPS3738P ITA NO. 910/CHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SHRI JASWANT SINGH V. ITO WARD-3 S/O SHRI ARJUN SINGH AMBALA AMBALA CITY PAN NO. BZPWS3889K ITA NO. 911/CHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SHRI JAWANT SINGH V. ITO WARD-3 S/O SHRI MEHAR SINGH AMBALA AMBALA CITY PAN NO. BAJPS0991Q ITA NO. 912/CHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SHRI JANG BAHADUR V. ITO WARD-3 S/O SHRI FAUJA SINGH AMBALA AMBALA CITY PAN NO. ABOPS3159D ITA NO. 913/CHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SHRI JAI SINGH V. ITO WARD-1 S/O SHRI GURDAYAL SINGH AMBALA AMBALA CITY PAN NO. BAIPS2693J ITA NO. 914/CHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SHRI JAGIR SINGH V. ITO WARD-3 THROUGH L/H JANG BAHADUR AMBALA W/O SHRI FAUJA SINGH AMBALA CITY PAN NO. ABOPS3159D 2 ITA NO. 915/CHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SHRI JAGTAR SINGH V. ITO WARD-3 S/O SHRI DARBARA SINGH AMBALA AMBALA CITY PAN NO. BZZPS5259J APPELLANT BY: SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR FCA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI AKHILESH GUPTA DR DATE OF HEARING: 21/22.11.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 26.12.2011 ORDER ALL THE AFORESAID APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES AR E DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON 1. 7.2011. THE FACTS AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN IN THE PRESEN T BUNCH OF APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL. WE THEREFORE FIND IT CONVENIENT TO D ISPOSE OF THE PRESENT BUNCH OF APPEALS BY A CONSOLIDATED ORDER. FOR THE S AKE OF CONVENIENCE FACTS AS WELL AS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE BEING EXTRACTED FORM THE CASE RECORDS OF SHRI JAI SINGH V . ITO ITA NO. 913/CHD/2011. 2. IN ITA NO. 913/CHD/2011 THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT ORDER PASSED U/S 250(6) OF THE INCOME-TAX A CT 1961 BY THE LD. CIT(A) PANCHKULA IS AGAINST LAW AN D FACTS ON THE FILE IN AS MUCH SHE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO ARB ITRARILY HOLD THAT ACTION OF THE AO IN HOLDING THAT RECTIFIC ATION IS NOT POSSIBLE IS JUSTIFIED. 2. THAT SHE GRAVELY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT AS THE IS SUE OF TAXABILITY OF INTEREST ON COMPENSATION HAS TRAVELED UP TO HON'BLE SUPREME COURT THE ISSUE IS DEBATABLE AND T HUS DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF RECTIFICATION U/S 154. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL BEARING ITA NO. 913/CHD/2011 914/CHD/2011 AND 915/CHD/2011 IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED A COMMON ORDER ON 1.7.2011 DISPOSING OF 63 A PPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY HIM THAT ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS INCLUDING COPY OF APPLICATION FILED U/S 154 ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SHEET OF COMPUTATION OF ASSESSABLE INCOME AND TDS CERTIFICATES DATED 5.2.2007 ISSUED BY THE LAND ACQU ISITION OFFICER HAVE 3 BEEN FILED IN THE CASE OF SHRI BALVINDER SINGH V. I TO ITA NO. 864/CHD/2011 AND THAT THEY ARE EQUALLY RELEVANT IN THE CASE OF SHRI JAI SINGH V ITO IN ITA NO. 913/CHD/2011 AND THEREFO RE THEY SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR DISPOSAL OF THE SAID APPEAL. 4. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS CULLED OUT FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 154 OF THE INCO ME-TAX ACT AND THE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON 1.7.2011 IN THE CASE OF SHRI JAI SINGH SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED HIS RET URN OF INCOME ON 27.3.2008 RETURNING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 59 100/- AF TER CLAIMING EXEMPTION FOR A SUM OF RS. 6 75 466/- U/S 10(37) IN RESPECT OF ENHANCED COMPENSATION ON ACQUISITION OF LAND. THE A SSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED CREDIT FOR A SUM OF RS. 82 480/- BEING THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE OUT OF INTEREST IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. TH E RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) WITHOUT ANY ADJUSTMENT AND REF UND WAS ACCORDINGLY GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENT ATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF SHRI BHUPINDER SINGH IN ITA NO. 864/CHD/2011 CONTAINS A SHEET OF COMPUTATION CHART FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2007-08 WHICH READS AS UNDER:- COMPUTATION OF ASSESSABLE INCOME INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES ENHANCED COMPENSATION RECEIVED FROM 670583.00 LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THOUGH CERTIFICATE NO. 74 INTT. RECEIVED ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION 5897 4.56 FROM LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THROUGH CERTIFICATE NO. 74 FROM 1.4.2006 TO 31.10.2006 (670583*15%*7/12) TOTAL INCOME RECEIVED 772557.56 LESS DEDUCTION U/S 10 (37) 670583.00 TAXABLE INCOME 58974.56 TOTAL INCOME ROUNDED OFF U/S 288A 58970.00 TOTAL TAX DUE ---NIL DETAILS OF TAX PAID TDS @ 11.22% ON INTEREST 6616.95 TDS @ 11.22% ON ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION 75239.41 81656.36 REFUND DUE 81656.36 6. PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENT ATIVE IN THE CASE OF SHRI BHUPINDER SINGH V ITO IN ITA NO. 864/CHD/20 11 CONTAINS A 4 COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY SHRI SHIV SINGLA AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE WHICH READS AS UNDE R:- TO THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3 AMBALA SUB:- RECTIFICATION U/S 154 IN THE CASE OF SHRI BHU PINDER SINGH S/O SHRI GURBAKSH SINGH R/O VILLAGE SAUNDA DISTT. AMBALA HAVING PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER BTKPS 8321 J FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. RESPECTED SIR THE ASSESSEE IS AGRICULTURIST AND WAS HAVING AGRICU LTURE LAND IN VILLAGE SAUNDA DISTRICT AMBALA. THE LAND WAS ACQUIRED BY LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER. ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ENHANCED COMPENSATION OF RS. 6 70 583.00 AND INTEREST OF RS. 14 67 470.00 DURING THE FY 2006-07 AS PER DETAIL GI VEN AS UNDER: CERT NO. ADDITIONAL INTEREST TOTAL L TDS COMPENSATION 74 6 70 583 14 67 470 21 38 043 2 41 424 ASSESSEE HAD FILED HIS INCOME TAX RETURN IN YOUR OF FICE VIDE RETURN RECEIPT NUMBER 6331014296 DATED 13.3.2008 DE CLARING HIS GROSS TOTAL INCOME RS. 7 29 558.00 IN WHICH ASSESSE E HAS CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 10(37) TO THE TUNE OF RS. 6 7 0 583.00 BEING ENHANCED COMPENSATION AND BALANCE RS. 58 975. 00 AS INTEREST INCOME RECEIVED ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION R ELEVANT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. ASSESSEE HAS BIFURCATED TH E INTEREST ON YEARLY BASIS AS PER THE CASE DECIDED IN PUNJAB A ND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT V HARDWARI LAL (HUF) AND OTHERS AS RECORDED IN (2008) 219 CTR (P&H) 583. IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF CIT V GHANSHYAN (HUF) 315 ITR 1 THE WHOLE OF TH E INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS. 14 67 470.00 RECEIVED BY THE ASSES SEE IS TO BE TAXABLE ON THE RECEIPT BASIS. THE ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE SUPREME COURT ON 16.7.2009. WHEREAS ASSESSEE DECLA RED INTEREST OF RS. 58 975/- ON ACCRUAL BASIS IN HIS RE TURN OF INCOME FILE ON 13.3.2008. ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ABOVE SAID INTEREST U/S 28 OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT. IN VIEW OF THE APEX COURT JUDGMEN T ABOVE SAID INTEREST NOW FORMS PART OF ENHANCED COMPENSATION. M EANING THEREBY THAT WHOLE OF THE INTEREST AND ENHANCED COM PENSATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ITSELF AND TAX DEDUCTED ON IT ALSO TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. ASSE SSEE QUALIFIES ALL THE CONDITIONS AS SPECIFIED IN SECTIO N 10(37). HENCE WHOLE THE RECEIPTS ARE EXEMPT U/S 10(37). HENCE I NTEREST DECLARED IN RETURN OF INCOME IS NOW EXEMPT AS PER A PEX COURT JUDGMENT. ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED ONLY INTEREST AND ENHANCED COMPENSATION OF RS. 7 29 558.00 IN THE RETURN AND B ALANCE AMOUNT OF INTEREST AND ENHANCED COMPENSATION RS. 14 08 495.00 5 (RS. 6 70 583.00 + RS. 14 67 470.00 RS. 7 29 558. 00) IS TO BE ADDED. ACCORDINGLY PROPORTIONATE TDS CREDIT IS TO BE TAKEN. THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT HAS COME AFTER FILING OF THE RETURN. THE RECTIFICATION IS SOUGHT IN VIEW OF THE APEX COU RT JUDGMENT. SECTION 154 CLEARLY SPECIFIES THAT A MISTAKE ARISIN G AS A RESULT OF SUBSEQUENT INTERPRETATION OF LAW BY THE S UPREME COURT CONSTITUTE A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORDS AND IS RECTIFIABLE PROVIDED PROPER APPLICATION FOR THE SAME HAS BEEN F ILED WITHIN TIME ALLOWED FOR THE PUR0PSOE. THE SAME VIEW WAS T AKEN BY THE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS SAURASHTRA KUTCH STOCK EXCHANGE LIMITED AS REPOR TED IN 305 ITR 227. HOPE YOUR GOOD SELF WILL FIND THE ABOVE IN ORDER AN D RECTIFY THE ORDER. THANKING YOU YOURS FAITHFULLY FOR SHRI BHUPINDER SINGH (SHIV SINGLA) COUNSEL 7. IT IS EVIDENT ON BARE PERUSAL OF THE CHART SHOWI NG COMPUTATION OF ASSESSABLE INCOME THAT INTEREST ON ENHANCED COMP ENSATION WAS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL AT R S.58 974/-. IT IS EQUALLY EVIDENT ON BARE PERUSAL OF THE COPY OF APPL ICATION FILED U/S 154 ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS SEE KING NOT ONLY ENHANCEMENT OF INTEREST FROM RS.58 974/- AS SHOWN I N THE RETURN OF INCOME TO RS.14 67 470/- AND ITS INCLUSION IN THE E NHANCED COMPENSATION ON THE BASIS OF JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BL E SUPREME COURT IN CIT V GHANSHAM(HUF) 315 ITR 1 (SC) BUT ALSO EXEM PTION OF THE WHOLE AMOUNT OF ENHANCED COMPENSATION INCLUDING INT EREST U/S 10(37). 8. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED THE RECTIFICATI ON APPLICATION. HE HOWEVER REJECTED THE SAME WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSER VATIONS:- 3. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE IS THAT THE ASSESSE E FILED HIS RETURN ON 27.3.2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT R S. 59 100/- AFTER CLAIMING EXEMPTION OF RS. 6 75 466/- U/S 10(37) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE ENHANCED LAND COMPENSATION. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED CREDIT FOR TDS AMOUNTING TO RS. 82 418/- CORRESPONDING TO THE INTE REST INCOME DECLARED IN THE RETURN AND THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION. THE CASE WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) AS SUCH AND REFUND WAS ALSO ISSUED ACCORDINGLY. 6 4. THUS AS ON DATE THE RETURNED INCOME STANDS TO BE THE ASSESSED INCOME AND THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPAREN T FROM THE RECORD WARRANTING RECTIFICATION THEREOF. IN FACT IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE INTENDS ITS CASE TO BE DECIDED AS PER THE PARTICULARS WHICH WERE NOT SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. HOWEVER THERE LIES NO RECTIFICATION FOR THE SAID PURPOSE AS THERE IS NO MISTAKE RECTIFIABLE U/S 154. FURTHER ALTHOUGH AFTER A RESPECTFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GHANSHAM (HUF) SUPRA THE ASSESSEES ENTIRE INCOME IS ASSESSABLE IN THE YEAR OF ITS RECEIPT BUT THE RECTIFICATION IS NOT A PROPER PROC ESS IN THIS CASE BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER CLAIMED THE R ELEVANT RELIEF IN HIS ORIGINAL RETURN NOR ANY RETURN HAS BE EN REVISED TO THIS EFFECT AS PER THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF TH E LAW. FOR THE SIMILAR REASONS THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CA SE ARE DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE CASE OF ACIT V. SAURASHTRA KUTCH STOCK EXCHANGE LIMITED 305 ITR 227 ALSO AS THERE W AS NO MISTAKE IN THE AOS ORDER PASSED W.R.T. THE FACTS R EPORTED IN THE RETURN. 5. THEREFORE IN VIEW OF THE AFORE-DISCUSSED FACTS OF THE CASE THE ASSESSEES APPLICATION IS NOT FOUND TO BE ACCEPTABLE AND IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. 9. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY ASSESSING OFFIC ER THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE LD. CI T(A) HOWEVER DISMISSED THE APPEAL FOR THE REASONS GIVEN IN HIS A PPELLATE ORDER. 10. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) TH E ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. IN SUPPORT OF A PPEAL THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CIT V. GHANSHAM (H UF) 315 ITR 1 (SC) HAS FINALLY SETTLED THE ISSUE THAT THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST RECEIVED U/S 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT WAS PART OF THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION AND THEREFORE LIABLE TO BE INCLUDED IN ITS ENTIRETY IN THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION RECEIVED IN THE YEAR UNDER AP PEAL. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS.14 67 4 70/- WAS RECEIVED U/S 28 IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL AND THEREFORE WAS P ART OF THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION. ACCORDING TO HIM THE ASSESS ING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE TAKEN THE SAID AMOUNT OF INTEREST (RS.14 67 470/-) IN PLACE OF 7 RS.58 974/- SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME AND INCLUDED THE SAME IN THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION RECE IVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL FOLLOWING THE JUD GMENT IN CIT V. GHANSHYAM (SUPRA) AND THEREAFTER EXEMPTED THE SAME U/S 10(37) AS THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION ITSELF WAS EXEMPT U/S 10( 37). 11. REFERRING TO THE JUDGMENT IN CIT V ARUNA LUTHRA 252 ITR 76 (P&H) HE SUBMITTED THAT RECTIFICATION U/S 154 CAN BE CARRIED OUT ON THE BASIS OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIG H COURT AND THE SUPREME COURT RENDERED SUBSEQUENTLY SO AS TO RECTIF Y A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE APPLICATION FILED ON BEHALF OF TH E ASSESSEE U/S 154. HE SUBMITTED THAT THIS TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO HELD IN A BUNCH OF APPEALS I.E. ITO AMBALA V. DEVI DAYAL AND OTHERS ITA NO. 561/CHD/2010 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 INVOLVING IDENT ICAL SET OF FACTS THAT THE ENTIRE INTEREST RECEIVED U/S 28 OF THE LAN D ACQUISITION ACT IN A PARTICULAR YEAR WAS LIABLE TO THE INCLUDED IN THE E NHANCED COMPENSATION RECEIVED IN THAT YEAR. ACCORDING TO HI M THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO HELD THAT SINCE THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION WAS EXEMPT U/S 10(37) THE ENTIRE INTEREST RECEIVED U/S 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT BEING PART OF THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION WOULD ALSO BE EXEMPT FROM TAX. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL SQUARELY COVERS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN HIS FAVOUR. HE F URTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUITY REQUIRES THAT SIMILAR TREATMENT SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AS HAS BEEN GIVEN TO OTHER AS SESSEES SIMILARLY PLACED AND CIRCUMSTANCED. 12. IN REPLY THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A). 13. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATERIALS PLAC ED BEFORE US INCLUDING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE PARTIES. IN C IT V GHANSHAM (HUF) 315 ITR 1 (SC) REFERRED TO BY THE LD. AUTHORI ZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS HEL D AS UNDER:- TO SUM UP INTEREST IS DIFFERENT FROM COMPENSATION . HOWEVER INTEREST PAID ON THE EXCESS AMOUNT UNDER SECTION 28 OF THE 1894 ACT DEPENDS UPON A CLAIM BY THE PERSON WHOSE LAND I S ACQUIRED WHEREAS INTEREST UNDER SECTION 34 IS FOR DELAY IN M AKING PAYMENT. THIS VITAL DIFFERENCE NEEDS TO BE KEPT IN MIND IN DECIDING THIS MATTER. INTEREST UNDER SECTION 28 IS PART OF THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION WHEREAS INTEREST UNDER SECTI ON 34 IS 8 ONLY FOR DELAY IN MAKING PAYMENT AFTER THE COMPENSA TION AMOUNT IS DETERMINED. INTEREST UNDER SECTION 28 IS A PART OF THE ENHANCED VALUE OF THE LAND WHICH IS NOT THE CASE IN THE MATTER OF PAYMENT OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 34. 14. THE ASSESSEE SEEKS RECTIFICATION ON THE BASIS O F THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT. IT IS CONTENDED THAT INTEREST SHOWN BY HI M IN THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS RECEIVED BY HIM U/S 28 OF THE LAND ACQUI SITION ACT AND NOT UNDER SECTION 34 THEREOF AND THEREFORE THE INTEREST SO RECEIVED BY HIM U/S 28 IS PART OF THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION RECEIV ED IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. IT IS ALSO HIS CASE THAT SINCE THE EN HANCED COMPENSATION IS EXEMPT FROM TAX U/S 10(37) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT THE INTEREST BEING PART OF THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION IS ALSO EXE MPT FROM TAX AND THEREFORE NOT LIABLE TO TAX AT ALL IN THE YEAR UND ER APPEAL. REFERRING TO THE JUDGMENT IN CIT V. ARUNA LUTHRA 252 ITR 76 (P& H) THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT RECTIFICATIONS ARE PERMISSIBLE ON THE BASIS OF LAW LAID DOWN BY TH E SUPREME COURT SUBSEQUENT TO THE PASSING OF THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED. 15. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CIT V ARUNA LUTHRA 252 ITR 76 (P&H) THAT RECTIFICATION O F AN ORDER/INTIMATION CAN BE CARRIED OUT ON THE BASIS OF SUBSEQUENT JUDGMENT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT/SUPREME C OURT PROVIDED THE MISTAKE SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN IN OTHER JUDGMENTS ALSO E.G. MEPCO INDUSTRIES LTD V CIT 319 ITR 208 (SC) IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN HE LD THAT A SUBSEQUENT JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT LAYING DOW N A PRINCIPLE OF LAW WILL BE APPLICABLE ACROSS THE BOARD AND RECTIFI CATION CAN BE DONE ON THAT BASIS. IT IS THUS NO LONGER RES INTEGRA THA T SUBSEQUENT JUDGMENTS OF THE SUPREME COURT LAYING DOWN A PRINCI PLE OF LAW ARE APPLICABLE ACROSS THE BOARD AND THE RECTIFICATION C AN BE CARRIED OUT ON THE BASIS OF A SUBSEQUENT JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME C OURT PROVIDED THE MISTAKE SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. HOWEVER THE RELEVANT QUESTIONS IN THIS BEHALF ARE TWO-FOLD: ONE WHETHER THE EXISTENCE OF A RECTIFIABLE MISTAKE IN THE ORDER WH ICH IS SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR EXERCISING RECTIFICATORY JURISDICTION U/S 154 AND TWO WHETHER THE FOUNDATI ONAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR APPLYING THE PRINCIPLE OF LAW LAID DO WN BY THE SUPREME COURT WHICH ARE NOT SELF-EVIDENT OR APPARENT FROM THE RECORD CAN BE COLLECTED AND INVESTIGATED AFRESH IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 154 SO AS TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT. 9 16. IN CIT V. ARUNA LUTHRA 252 ITR 76 (P&H) THE F ACTS OF THE CASE WERE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED HER RETURN OF INCO ME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1987-88 IN WHICH SHE HAD DECLARED HER INCOME AT RS. 44 380. WHILE COMPUTING THE PROFIT FROM BUSINESS THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDU CTION OF RS.74 205 ON ACCOUNT OF LOSS IN CHIT FUND. THE AO FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER S. 143(1)(A) OF THE I-T ACT 1961. VIDE ORDER DATED 30 TH MARCH 1988 THE INCOME AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPTED. SUBSEQUENTLY ON 4TH APRIL 1 989 A DIVISION BENCH OF THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT DECIDED THE CASE OF S ODA SILICATE & CHEMICAL WORKS VS. CIT 179 ITR 588 (P&H) IN WHICH IT WAS INTER A LIA HELD THAT THE 'CONTRIBUTIONS MADE TO THE CHIT FUND COULD NOT BE TREATED AS REVEN UE EXPENDITURE NOR COULD THE PAYMENT OR RECEIPT OF ANY AMOUNT TO AND FROM THE CH IT FUND BE TREATED AS THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE. THE TRANSACTIONS INVOLVED DID NOT GIVE RISE TO ANY INCOME ASSESSABLE TO INCOME-TAX NOR ANY REVENUE LOS S IN RESPECT OF WHICH ANY DEDUCTION COULD BE CLAIMED'. AFTER THE ABOVE DECISI ON THE AO ISSUED A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 154 TO THE ASSESSEE. SHE WAS ASKED TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF LOSS IN CHIT FUND BE NOT DISALLOWED. FINALLY VIDE ORDER DATED 13 TH FEBRUARY 1992 THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT WAS RECTIFIE D. THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OF RS.74 205 ON ACCOUNT OF LOSS IN CHIT F UND BY DEBITING THE AMOUNT TO HER P&L A/C WAS THUS DISALLOWED. AS A CONSEQUENCE THE AMOUNT WAS ADDED TO THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE OR DER OF THE AO THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL WHICH WAS DISMISSED BY THE CIT(A). ON FURTHER APPEAL THE TRIBUNAL TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUE REGARDING THE ADMISSIB ILITY OF THE DEDUCTION WAS DEBATABLE AS THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL AFTER CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SODA SIL ICATE (SUPRA) HAD TAKEN A DIFFERENT VIEW AND THUS IT GOES OUT OF THE PURVIE W OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 154. ON APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE R EVENUE THAT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT THE TRIB UNAL COULD NOT HAVE HELD THAT THE ISSUE WAS DEBATABLE. IN THE AFORESAID FACTUAL MATRI X OF THE CASE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER: ON A PERUSAL OF SECTION 154 WE FIND THAT THE PROV ISION DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR RECTIFICATION ONLY WHEN A MISTAKE IN THE ORDER IS D ETECTED. THE MISTAKE HAS TO BE ON THE RECORD OF THE CASE. THE RECORD WOULD INCL UDE EVERYTHING ON THE CASE FILE. THE RETURN THE EVIDENCE AND THE ORDER A RE A PART OF THE RECORD. THE MISTAKE CAN BE DETECTED FROM ANYTHING ON THE FI LE. THUS EVEN IN CASE OF AN ASSESSMENT UNDER S. 143(1) IT HAS NOT TO BE ASS UMED THAT THERE CAN BE NO ERROR APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. AS FOR THE DECIS ION IN THE CASE OF HERO CYCLES (SUPRA) THE RULE LAID DOWN BY THEIR LORDSHI PS IS THAT THE MISTAKE CAN BE OF FACT AND LAW. HOWEVER THE RECTIFICATION CAN BE MADE ONLY WHEN 'A GLARING MISTAKE OF FACT OR LAW COMMITTED BY THE OFF ICER PASSING THE ORDER 10 BECOMES APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. RECTIFICATION IS NOT POSSIBLE IF THE QUESTION IS DEBATABLE'. WE CANNOT READ THIS DECISIO N TO MEAN THAT ONLY THE ORDER HAS TO BE SEEN AND NOT THE RECORD. THUS THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE COUNSEL CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE DECISION OF AN AUTHO RITY DECIDES THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES. IT VESTS A RIGHT IN THEM. THE VESTED R IGHT CANT BE TAKEN AWAY EXCEPT WHEN SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED BY A RETROSPECTI VE LAW. THERE IS NO QUARREL WITH THE PROPOSITION. HOWEVER WHAT DESERVES NOTICE IS THAT THE RIGHT IF ANY IS SUBJECT TO THE PROVISION S OF LAW. SEC. 154 CLEARLY PROVIDES FOR THE INTERVENTION OF THE AUTHORITY WITH IN THE SPECIFIED TIME SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT THE MISTAKE IS A PPARENT AND THE ISSUE IS NOT DEBATABLE. THUS ANY RIGHT UNDER AN ORDER IS SUBJECT TO THE PROVISION OF THE STATUTE. THAT BEING SO THERE IS N O VESTED RIGHT WHICH CAN BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN AWAY. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE HOLD THAT THE POWER UNDER S. 154 CAN BE INVOKED EVEN WHEN AN ISSUE IS D ECIDED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OR A SUPERIOR COURT AFTER THE ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED. 17. IN MEPCO INDUSTRIES LTD V CIT 319 ITR 208 (SC) THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS CITED WITH APPROVAL THE OBSERVA TIONS MADE IN DEVA METAL POWDERS P. LTD V COMMISSIONER TRADE TAX U.P. 2008 (2) SCC 439 (SC) AND HELD THAT NOT ONLY A MISTAKE SHOUL D EXIST IN THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED BUT THE SAME SHOULD AL SO BE A PATENT MISTAKE WHICH IS OBVIOUS AND WHOSE DISCOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT ON ELABORATE ARGUMENTS. 18. IN DEVA METAL POWDER P. LTD V COMMISSIONER TRA DE TAX (SUPRA) THE FACTS OF THE CASE WERE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS DE ALING WITH ALUMINIUM POWDER. IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED ALUMINIUM POWDER WAS TREATED AS METAL AND ACCORDING LY HELD LIABLE TO TAX AT THE RATE OF 2.2%. THE ASSESSING OFFICER INIT IATED PROCEEDINGS FOR RECTIFICATION OF THE SAID ORDER ON THE GROUND T HAT THE SUPREME COURT HAD IN HINDUSTAN ALUMINIUM CORPORATION LTD. V . STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER 1981 (3) SCC 578 CONSIDERED TH E ENTRY 'ALL KINDS OF MINERALS ORES METALS AND ALLOYS INCLUDIN G SHEETS AND CIRCLES' AND HELD THAT UNDER THE SAID ENTRY ONLY THE PRIMARY METAL WAS COVERED. IT WAS ALSO HELD IN THAT JUDGMENT THAT SHE ETS AND CIRCLE OF ALUMINIUM WOULD NOT BE COVERED UNDER THE ENTRY 'MET AL'. BASED ON THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECTIFIED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND LEVIED TAX TREATING THE ALUMINIUM POWDER AS AN UNCLASSIFIED 11 ITEM. IN THE AFORESAID FACTUAL MATRIX THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT WHILE ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS LAID DOWN THE FOLLOWING PROPOSITIONS: (I) THE MISTAKE IN THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED M UST EXIST AND THE SAME MUST BE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. (II) MISTAKE MEANS TO TAKE OR UNDERSTAND WRONGLY OR INACCURATELY; TO MAKE AN ERROR IN INTERPRETING; IT AS AN ERROR A FAULT A MISUNDERSTANDING A MISCONCEPTION . APPARENT MEANS VISIBLE; CAPABLE OF BEING SEEN OB VIOUS; PLAIN. IT MEANS OPEN TO VIEW VISIBLE EVIDENT AP PEARS APPEARING AS REAL AND TRUE CONSPICUOUS MANIFEST OBVIOUS AND SEEMING. (III) A MISTAKE WHICH CAN BE RECTIFIED IS ONE WHICH IS PA TENT WHICH IS OBVIOUS AND SHOWS DISCOVERY AND IS NOT DEP ENDENT OR AT ARGUMENT OR ELABORATION. THOUGH A MISTAKE CAP ABLE OF BEING RECTIFIED IS NOT CONFINED TO CLERICAL OR A RITHMETICAL MISTAKE IT DOES NOT HOWEVER COVER ANY MISTAKE WHI CH MAY BE DISCOVERED BY A COMPLICATED PROCESS OF INVESTIGATION ARGUMENT OR PROOF. THE DECISION ON A DEBATABLE POINT OF LAW OR FACT OR FAILURE TO APPLY THE LAW TO A SET OF FACTS WHICH REMAINS TO BE INVESTIGATED CAN NOT BE CORRECTED BY WAY OF RECTIFICATION. (IV) RECTIFICATION OF AN ORDER DOES NOT MEAN OBLITERATIO N OF THE ORDER ORIGINALLY PASSED AND ITS SUBSTITUTION BY A N EW ORDER. (V) WHERE AN ERROR IS FAR FROM SELF EVIDENT IT CEASES TO BE AN APPARENT ERROR AND THEREFORE NOT CAPABLE OF BEING RECTIFIED. 19. IT IS THUS CLEAR FROM THE AFORESAID AUTHORITATI VE PRONOUNCEMENTS OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AS ALSO OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT THAT A RECTIFIABLE MISTAKE MUST EXIST AND THA T SUCH A MISTAKE SHOULD BE SELF-EVIDENT AND APPARENT FROM THE RECORD . NO JUDGMENT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE TO THE EFFECT THAT A MIS TAKE WHICH IS NOT SELF-EVIDENT OR APPARENT FROM THE RECORD IS ALSO A MENABLE TO RECTIFICATION U/S 154. ALL THE AUTHORITIES ARE CONS ISTENT IN THE VIEW THAT THE MISTAKE SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED U/S 154 MUST BE SELF-EVIDENT AND APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. AS A COROLLARY OF THE AFO RESAID PROPOSITION IT FOLLOWS THAT FOUNDATIONAL FACTS CAN NEITHER BE C OLLECTED NOR ENQUIRED INTO NOR INVESTIGATED IN THE COURSE OF RECTIFICATIO N PROCEEDINGS U/S 154 IN ORDER TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPR EME COURT. A PARTY 12 SEEKING RECTIFICATION U/S 154 HAS TO NECESSARILY ES TABLISH THAT THE MISTAKE SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED IS SELF-EVIDENT OR A PPARENT FROM THE RECORD. 20. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE JUDGMENTS OF THE SUP REME COURT HAVE RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT EXCEPT AS REGARDS MATTERS THAT ARE RES-JUDICATA OR ACCOUNTS THAT HAVE BEEN SETTLED IN THE MEANTIME. A JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT DOES NOT THUS HAVE THE EFFECT OF DIST URBING THE MATTERS WHICH STAND CONCLUDED EXCEPT IN THE MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW. SECTION 154 PERMITS RECTIFICATION ON THE BASIS OF A SUBSEQU ENT JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT PROVIDED THE RECTIFIABLE MISTAKE IS A PPARENT FROM THE RECORD AND IS SELF-EVIDENT. JUDGMENTS RENDERED BY T HE SUPREME COURT AND JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT CANNOT BE PRESSED INT O SERVICE TO DISTURB OR REOPEN THE CONCLUDED MATTERS EXCEPT IN THE MANNE R PROVIDED BY LAW E.G. SECTION 154. FOR SIMILAR REASONS JUDGME NTS OF THE SUPREME COURT AND JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT CANNOT BE PRESS ED INTO SERVICE TO MAKE A NEW CLAIM WHICH WAS NOT MADE EARLIER OR TO SEEK REVIEW OF THE DECISION IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDGMENTS OF THE S UPREME COURT. SECTION 154 PERMITS RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE ON THE BASIS OF THE JUDGMENTS OF THE SUPREME COURT PROVIDED THE RECTIFI ABLE MISTAKE IS SELFEVIDENT AND APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. REVIEW O F THE EARLIER DECISION OR COLLECTION OF MATERIALS INCLUDING FOUND ATIONAL FACTS IS CLEARLY OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF SECTION 154. 21. TURNING TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME OFFERING A SUM OF RS.58 974/- TO TAX WITHOUT ANY INDICATION THAT THE INTEREST BEING RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE WA S RECEIVED U/S 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT. THERE IS NO INDICATION EVEN IN THE COPY OF CHART OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME AS FILED BEFORE US THAT THE INTEREST SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS R ECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT. A COPY OF THE TDS CERTIFICATE (NO.74) HAS ALSO BEEN FILED BEFORE US. IT ALSO DOES NOT SHOW THAT THE INTEREST WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT. THE AO SIMPLY ACKNOWLEDGED THE RET URN AND GRANTED REFUND TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT CARRYING OUT ANY ADJ USTMENT SO MUCH SO THAT HE DID NOT EVEN TOUCH UPON THE ISSUE OF EXE MPTION U/S 10(37) AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. THESE FACTS CLEARLY ESTABLISH THAT NO MISTAKE EXISTS IN ANY ORDER INTI MATION ETC. WHICH CAN BE RECTIFIED U/S 154. RECTIFICATION U/S 154 PRE -SUPPOSES THE EXISTENCE OF A MISTAKE IN AN ORDER INTIMATION ETC . WHICH IS SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED. NONE OF THE PAPERS FILED BY THE ASSES SEE SHOWS ANY 13 MISTAKE WHICH CAN BE TERMED AS SELF-EVIDENT OR APPA RENT FROM THE RECORD. IT IS QUITE POSSIBLE THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY BE ABLE TO ESTABLISH THE MISTAKE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME OR IN THE CHART SHOWING COMPUTATION OF INCOME OR IN THE TDS CERTIFICATE ISS UED BY THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER IF IT IS GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO D O SO OR SOME MATERIAL IS ALLOWED TO BE COLLECTED. HOWEVER SUCH A COURSE O F ACTION IS NOT PERMISSIBLE U/S 154 FOR THE REASON THAT SECTION 154 CAN BE INVOKED TO RECTIFY ONLY THOSE MISTAKES WHICH ARE SELF-EVIDENT OR APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. THUS MERE ALLEGATION OF THE ASSESSEE TH AT A MISTAKE EXISTS IS NOT SUFFICIENT. WHAT IS CONTEMPLATED FOR RECTIFI CATION UNDER SECTION 154 IS A MISTAKE WHICH IS SELF-EVIDENT OR APPARENT FROM THE RECORD AND NOT EACH AND EVERY MISTAKE. A PARTY SEEKING RECTIFI CATION U/S 154 CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO LEAD EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THE MISTAKE. TRUE RECTIFICATION CAN BE CARRIED OUT ON THE BASIS OF JU DGMENTS OF THE SUPREME COURT BUT THE MISTAKE SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIE D ON THAT BASIS MUST BE SELF-EVIDENT AND APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE NO SUCH MISTAKE IN ANY ORDER INTIMATION ETC . HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE WHICH CAN BE RECTIFIED U/S 154. 22. THE APPLICABILITY OF THE JUDGMENT IN GHANSHYAM (SUPRA) DEPENDS UPON THE EXISTENCE OF CERTAIN FOUNDATIONAL FACTS W HICH MUST BE SELF- EVIDENT OR APPARENT FROM THE RECORD OF THE AO SO AS TO BRING THE CASE WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SECTION 154. AS STATED EARLIER THE ASSESSEE HAS NO-WHERE STATED EITHER IN THE RETURN OF INCOME OR I N THE COMPUTATION SHEET FILED ALONG WITH RETURN OF INCOME THAT THE IN TEREST SHOWN BY HIM WAS RECEIVED BY HIM U/S 28 AND NOT U/S 34. THE ASSE SSEE WANTS THIS ISSUE TO BE VERIFIED AND INVESTIGATED WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN THE COURSE OF RECTIFICATION PROCEEDINGS U/S 154. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAS SHOWN INTEREST INCOME AS RECEI VED U/S 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT EITHER IN THE RETURN OF INCOME OR IN THE COMPUTATION SHEET FILED ALONG WITH RETURN OF INCOME . PERUSAL OF THE TDS CERTIFICATE SHOWS THAT THE IMPUGNED INTEREST HA S NOT BEEN SHOWN EVEN BY THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AS PAID TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT. THEREFORE THE FOUNDATION AL FACTS NECESSARY FOR APPLYING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME CO URT IN CIT V GHANSHAM (HUF) 315 ITR 1 (SC) ARE NOT SELF-EVIDENT OR APPARENT FROM THE RECORD OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AS ALREADY STA TED ABOVE SECTION 154 CANNOT BE APPLIED TO A CASE WHERE THE MISTAKE I S FAR FROM SELF EVIDENT. THEREFORE THE MISTAKE POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE SAID TO BE A MISTAKE APPARENT FORM RECORD. 14 23. IT IS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE INTEREST BEING PART OF THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION IS EXEMPT U/S 10(37). EXEMPT ION U/S 10(37) IS AVAILABLE ON THE FULFILLMENT OF THE CONDITIONS E NUMERATED THEREIN. THEREFORE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT INTEREST W OULD BE EXEMPT U/S 10(37) WOULD ALSO REQUIRE EXAMINATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(37). TRUE THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXEM PTION U/S 10(37) IN RESPECT OF ENHANCED COMPENSATION IN HIS RETURN O F INCOME BUT NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN PLACED BEFORE US TO ESTABLISH THA T THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN SECTION 10(37) HAVE BEEN FULFILLED. TH E CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE INTEREST RECEIVED BY HIM IS EXEMP T U/S 10(37) WOULD THEREFORE REQUIRE EXAMINATION OF THE CLAIM OF THE A SSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(37) WHICH CANNOT B E UNDERTAKEN IN PROCEEDINGS U/S 154. THE JUDGMENT IN GHANSHYAM (SUP RA) DOES NOT LAY DOWN ANY SUCH PROPOSITION THAT THE INTEREST RECEIVE D UNDER THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT WOULD ALWAYS BE EXEMPT U/S 10(37). BESIDES IT IS A MATTER OF DEBATE AS TO WHETHER THE IMPUGNED INTERES T IS AT ALL ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10(37) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. THE REFORE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING EXEMPTION OF INTEREST U/S 10(37) CANNOT BE CONSIDERED U/S 154. 24. ON CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE O N RECORD WE ARE CONVINCED THAT WHAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOW TRYING IN T HE GARB OF SEEKING RECTIFICATION IS TO HAVE ITS CASE REOPENED OR REVIE WED IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT V GHANSHAM (HUF) (SUPRA). SECTION 154 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE REVIEW OF AN ORDER ALREADY PASSED. WHAT THE ASSESSE E WANTS TO DO NOW IS TO MAKE A FRESH CLAIM ON THE BASIS OF FRESH MATERIALS AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CIT V GHAMSHAM (HUF) WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE U/S 154. 25. THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRE SENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN A BUNC H OF APPEALS I.E. ITO AMBALA V. DEVI DAYAL AND OTHERS ITA NO. 561/C HD/2010 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 INVOLVING IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS IS OF NO HELP TO HIM AS THAT DECISION WAS RENDERED IN MATTER S RELATING TO ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) AND NOT IN THE MATTERS RELATI NG TO SECTION 154. COMPLETE FACTS WERE AVAILABLE IN THOSE MATTERS. THE APPEALS FILED BEFORE US RELATE TO MATTERS U/S 154. SECTION 154 CA N BE INVOKED ONLY WHERE THE MISTAKE SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED IS SELF-EV IDENT OR APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. DECISIONS RENDERED BY THIS TRIBUNA L IN MATTERS OF ASSESSMENT CANNOT FORM THE BASIS FOR CARRYING OUT R ECTIFICATION U/S 154 15 IN OTHER CASES HOWSOEVER SIMILARLY PLACED AND CIRCU MSTANCED THEY BE AND THAT TOO OF MISTAKES WHICH ARE NOT SELF-EVIDENT OR APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. IT WAS ALSO PLEADED BY HIM THAT RELIEF SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEES ON CONSIDERATIONS OF EQUITY. IN OUR V IEW RECTIFICATIONS U/S 154 CANNOT BE CARRIED OUT ON CONSIDERATIONS OF EQUITY. 26. WE HAVE REPRODUCED A COPY OF THE APPLICATION FI LED U/S 154. ITS PERUSAL SHOWS THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN SIGNED BY THE AS SESSEE BUT BY HIS CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT. SECTION 154(2)(B) PROVIDES TH AT THE AUTHORITY CONCERNED SHALL MAKE SUCH AMENDMENT FOR RECTIFYING ANY SUCH MISTAKE WHICH HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO ITS NOTICE BY THE ASSESS EE. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MIST AKE TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. A REPRESENTATIVE CAN REPR ESENT THE ASSESSEE BUT HE CANNOT SUBSTITUTE THE ASSESSEE FOR ALL INTEN T AND PURPOSE. SINCE IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HA S NOT FILED A RECTIFICATION APPLICATION U/S 154 RECTIFICATION AP PLICATION FILED BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS INCOMPETENT AND THEREFORE NON-EST IN THE EYES OF LAW. THE ORDER OF THE AO/CIT(A) IS LIABLE TO BE CONFIRMED FOR THIS REASON ALSO. 27. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY DECLINED TO EXERCISE HIS RECTIFICATION JURISDICTION IN THE MATTER UNDER APPEAL. APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. FOR SIMILAR REASONS THE APPEALS FILED BY OTHER ASSESSEES ARE ALSO DISMI SSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 26 TH DECEMBER 2011 SD./- SD./- (H.L. KARWA) (D.K.SRIVASTAVA) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: THE 26 TH DECEMBER 2011 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR