1. G. C. GARG, J.---The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar, has referred for the opinion of this Court the following question of law: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the allowance of the deduction in respect of Rasoi expenses which are not admissible for deduction in view of the decision of the Punjab and. Haryana High Court in CIT v. Gheru Lal Bal Chand (1978) 111 ITR 134, -was not a mistake apparent from record within the Act and that the Income-tax Officer is not justified in proceeding under section 154 to disallow the deduction made in respect of these expenses?"
2. The assessee is a registered firm. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1975-76. During the relevant year the assessee claimed deduction of Rs.12,692 on the ground that it had incurred Rasoi expenses during the accounting year. The Income-tax Officer disallowed a sum of Rs.1, 000 from the same while making an assessment under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act. However, subsequently, the Income-tax Officer realised that an error in allowing the assessee Rasoi expenses amounting to Rs.11, 692. The Income-tax Officer came to this conclusion in view of the decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. Gheru Lal Bal Chand (1978) 111 ITR 134. According to the decision in Gheru Lal Bal Chand's case (1978) 111 ITR 134, the amount incurred on Rasoi expenses, being entertainment expanses, is not saved on the ground that the expenditure was undertaken to extend customary hospitality. The Income-tax Officer consequently issued a notice under the section 154 of the Act calling upon the assessee to show cause as to why the error apparent on the face of the record in the assessm ent order be not corrected in respect of the Rasoi expenses. The assessee filed a reply objecting to the rectification in respect of the Rasoi expenses. It was submitted that the expenses incurred on supplying food and refreshments by businessmen to constituents had been the subject-matter of a decision by various High Co4rts. The decisions of the Bombay High Court and the Gujarat High Court, in CIT v. Shah Nanji Nagsi (1979) 116 ITR 292 and CIT v. Patel Brothers & Co. Ltd. (1977) 106 ITR 424, respectively, were referred to. According to the assessee different Courts had taken different views and the Rasoi expenses did not represent entertainment expenses. The Income-tax Officer rectified the order of assessment by disallowing a sum of Rs.11, 692 representing the expenditure on Rasoi expenses after adjusting the expenditure earlier disallowed.
3. The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The appeal was dismissed. The assessee filed a further appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. It came to the conclusion that the issue regarding allowability or otherwise of expenditure incurred over the supply of food and refreshments by a businessman to his constituents is no longer an open issue as far as the State of Punjab is concerned and all authorities subject to the jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court are bound by the rule of law enunciated in Gheru Lal Bal Chand's case (1978) 111 ITR 134 (P & H). The Tribunal, however, went on to state that there is a controversy about the issue -and it cannot shut its eyes to the decisions of the other High Courts, for the matter of deciding whether a rectification within the purview of section 154 of the Income Tax Act is permissible or not. The matter would have been entirely different about the allowability or otherwise of such an expenditure if it was in an appeal filed against the assessment order, but in the matter-of rectification the matter is otherwise. The matter was not free from controversy in view of the judgments of the Bombay High Court and the Gujarat High Court. It thus ultimately came to the conclusion that the provisions of section 1.54 were not applicable for the purposes of causing rectification when there were different views available on the subject. The Tribunal, therefore, agreed with the submission of the assessee that when there were different views on the issue, the Income-tax Officer was not right in proceeding under section 154 to rectify the assessm ent by withdrawing the allowance previously allowed by him. The findings recorded by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), were set aside and the order of rectification was cancelled by allowing the appeal.
4. On the application under section 256(1) of the Commissioner of Income-tax, the question as reproduced above has been referred this Court for opinion.
5. The opinion of this Court having come to the notice of the Income-- tax Officer, he issued a notice under section 154 of the Income Tax Act for rectification of the order of assessment originally passed and relying on the decision of this Court in Gheru Lal Bal Chand's case (1978) 111 ITR 134, passed an order of rectification The question thus, arises whether in the facts of this case there was a mistake apparent from the record or not.
6. On a consideration of the matter we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was not right in law in coming to the. Above conclusion. It is true that the Bombay High Court and the Gujarat High Court have taken a view contrary to the one taken by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, but in the presence of a definite opinion of this Court, the same shall prevail and is binding on the functionaries working within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The authorities by reference to the opinion of another High Court cannot say that the point is debatable and, thus, is not a mistake apparent on the face of the record. The view of this Court as already noticed by the Tribunal was definite and the question of a doubt being there did not arise if the assessment order had been passed in the first instance. The assessing authority could not have taken a view contrary to the one taken in the case of Gheru Lal Bal Chand (1978) 111 ITR 134 (P & H), by reference to the decisions of the other High Courts. In view of the fact that the opinion rendered by this Court is binding on the functionaries working within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, and once that is so the order passed by the assessing authority by ignoring the opinion of this Court is a mistake apparent on the face of the record and thus the Income-tax Officer in our opinion was right in issuing a notice and passing an order of rectification. The Tribunal was not right in coming to the conclusion that the mistake in this case was not apparent on the face of the record in view of the conflicting views of the other High Courts.