1. R. R. RASTOGI, J.-This is a reference under section 256 (1) of the I. T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act").
2. The brief facts are these. Messrs. Omega Sports and Radio Works, Gorakhpur, hereafter "the assessee", was a registered firm of three partners. On August 19, 1968, two of the partners aired and with effect from the following date. i. e., August 20, 1968, the surviving partners and one another formed the partnership. For the Assessment year 1969, the previous year ended on March 31, 1969, the assessee field two returns and in respect of the first period claim renewal of the registration and for the latter period a fresh registration. The I. T. O. Being the opinion that there was a change in the constitution of the firm with effect from August 20, 1968, made one assessment for the entire year in the statutes of a registered firm. The income of the two periods aforesaid was allocated amongst the partners of the firm as existing during the two periods respectively and allowed renewal of registration under section 184 (7) for the first period and for the second period allowed fresh registration under section 185 (1) (a) of the Act.
3. No appeal was filed against that order. Subsequently, the assessee acted an application under section 154 of the Act, requiring the I. T. O. To pass separate assessment orders for the two periods aforesaid. It was contended that a mistake apparent on the face of the record had occurred, in as much only one assessm ent had been framed for the entire period arid, hence, notification was sought. The I. T. O. Did not accept that contention and rejected the application vide his order dated May 11, 1973. On appeal, the A. A. C. Took a contrary view and directed the I. T. O. To frame separate assessm ents for the aforesaid two periods. The department then took up the matter in appeal before the I. T. Appellate Tribunal.
4. The revenue conceded before the Appellate Tribunal that in view of the Full Bench decision of this court in Dahi Laxmi Dal Factory v. I. T. O. ((1976) 103 I T R 517) which is binding in the State of Uttar Pradesh, it may not be possible to argue that one assessment for the entire period was legally justified in the ease. It was, however, contended that in view of the fact that the question is highly debatable in nature and the Punjab and Haryana High Court has taken a different view on this matter, recourse to section 154 of the Act could not be taken. This contention has found favour with the Appellate Tribunal and it has taken the view that even though, because of the fact fiat the decisions of this court are binding in Uttar Pradesh, it was not possible to hold that an order passed by an authority in the State of U. P. Contrary to the ratio of the decision of the Allababad High Court suffers from a glaring or obvious mistake of law, Since this question was highly contentions, recourse to section 15.1 of the Act teas not justifiable.
5. It would appear, therefore, that the I. T. Authorities situated within the jurisdiction of a particular High Court are bound by its decisions and simply because some other courts have taken a different view, it would not be correct to say that issue was debatable in so far as that court was concerned.
6. Learned counsel for the department drew our attention to a Division Bench decision of this court in C. I. T. v. Vindeshwari Trading Corporation ((1978) 113 I T R 791) We do not think that this decision helps the revenue in any way. That was a decision given on an application under section 256 (2) of the Act and the question for which reference was sought was as to whether separate assess-- ments are to be framed when a change takes place in the constitution of a firm. Their Lordships took the view that in view of the decision's of this court in 'Dahi Laxmi Dal Factory and Kunj Behari Shayam Lal this question stands concluded. B -it, in view of the fact that a Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. In the case of Addl. C. I. T. v. Visakha Flour Mills ((1977) 108 I T R .166 (Andh. Pra.)) after considering one of the aforesaid Full Bench decisions of this court, took a view contrary to that taken by this court, and this court, and this controversy has not been settled by the Supreme Court, took the view that it could not be said that no statable question of law arose from out of the appellate order of the Tribunal. This decision does not say that in so far as the I. T. Authorities of this State are concerned, they can take the view that this question is of a debatable nature because some of the High Courts have taken a different view, and so, recourse cannot be taken to section 154 of the Act. On this view the Appellate Tribunal was not right in holding That Section 154 of the Act would not be invoked in this Cast.
7. We, therefore, answer the question in the negative; in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee is entitled to costs which we assess at Rs. 250.