JUDGMENT

Kapadia, J. —

Heard learned counsel on both sides.

Leave granted.

2. The short question which arises in the facts and circumstances of these appeals is: whether it was open to the Commissioner of Income Tax to rectify its own order of under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the basis of the judgement of this Court [later judgement] in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Limited & Ors. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in, 1 [1997] 228 I.T.R.253? In short, in these appeals, we are concerned with the scope of Section 154 of the Act.

3. The appellant is engaged in the business of manufacture of Potassium Chlorates. Its factory is located in the Union Territory of Pondicherry. The appellant received power subsidy for two years, which it initially offered as revenue receipt in its Return of Income. In the petitions filed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short, “the Act”], the assessee pleaded that the subsidy amount was a capital receipt, hence not liable to be taxed, and, accordingly, it sought revision of the assessment orders for Assessment Years 1993-1994 and 1994-1995. In the revision petitions, appellant had pleaded that the subsid