JUDGMENT
(1) Whether a rebate of I % was due to the assessed or not is not easy to find from the 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 of reasoning a section cannot be interpreted and relief granted by invoking jurisdiction under Section 154 of the Act. If has been held by the Supreme Court in T.S. Balram V. Valcart Brothers 82 Itr 50 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 conceivably two opinions. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record.
(2) 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. The question whether Section 141A would enable the assessed to get a rebate of 1% on the amount of tax which was not whole of the tax paid before 31st December, 1963 was not free from doubt.
(3) Applying the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court Valcart Brothers case 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 provisions of section 154 specially when it is debatable whether the assessed can at all lay such a claim.