D. K. SEN, J. ( 1 ) PILANI Investment Corporation Ltd. , the assessee, was assessed to income-tax for the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68. During the said assessment years, the assessee had income from dividend. The Income-tax Officer allowed relief under Section 85a of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (" the Act "), as it then stood, not on the gross dividend income but on the net dividend income after ascertaining the same by deducting from the gross dividend proportionate expenditure and bank interest which was relatahle to the earning of such dividend income : the assessee thereafter applied before the Income-tax Officer under Section 154 of the Act for rectification of the assessments claiming allowance of the relief under Section 85a on the gross dividend. The Income-tax Officer rejected the said application of the assessee holding that the relief under Section 85a had been granted according to law and there is no mistake apparent from the records. ( 2 ) AGGRIEVED by the order of the Income-tax Officer, the assessee preferred appeal from the same before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the assessee relied on the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. Darbhanga Marketing Co. Ltd. [1971] 80 ITR 72. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner noted that there was a conflicting judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Addl. CIT v. Cloth Traders (P.) Ltd. [1974] 97 ITR 140. It was held that as the issue was debatable, the alleged mistake in the original assessment could not be considered to be a mistake apparent from records and the same could not be rectified under Section 154. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the assessment of the Income-tax Officer. ( 3 ) BEING aggrieved, the assessee went up in further appeal before the Tribunal. It was held by the Tribunal that in Darbhanga Marketing Co. Lld. 's case the High Court had occasion only to interpret Section 99 (1) (iv) of the Act. The Gujarat High Court in Cloth Traders (P.) Ltd. 's case [1974] 97 ITR 140, had specifically considered Section 85a and had held that relief under the said section could be allowed only on the net dividend income. Lld. 's case the High Court had occasion only to interpret Section 99 (1) (iv) of the Act. The Gujarat High Court in Cloth Traders (P.) Ltd. 's case [1974] 97 ITR 140, had specifically considered Section 85a and had held that relief under the said section could be allowed only on the net dividend income. The Tribunal held that the case of the assessee could not be supported by the decision in Darbhanga Marketing Co, Ltd. 's case in any manner and that the Income-tax Officer was justified in rejecting the assessee's prayer for rectification of the assessment by reason of the principles laid down in Cloth Traders (P.) Ltd. 's case [1974] 97 ITR 340 (Guj ). The Tribunal upheld the orders of the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner but for reasons different from those of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal specifically held that Section 85a contemplated relief only on the net dividend income and not on the gross dividend income and, therefore, there was no mistake in the orders of assessment which could be rectified. ( 4 ) ON an application of the assessee under Section 256 (1) of the Act, the Tribunal has referred the following question as a question of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal for the opinion of this court:"whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of Section 85a of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was correct in its view that the deduction under the said statutory provision was allowable with reference to the net dividend income but not the gross dividend income of the assessee and in upholding, in that view, the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ?" ( 5 ) AT the hearing before us, the learned advocate for the assessee submitted that the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Cloth Traders (P.) Ltd. 's case [1974] 97 ITR 140, was reversed subsequently by the Supreme Court in Cloth Traders (P.) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [1979] 118 ITR 243 and it was specifically held that the rebate on income-tax under Section 85a is to be calculated on the full amount of dividend. The Supreme Court expressed similar view in respect of the construction of the earlier Section 99 (1 ) (iv) and the subsequent Section 80m of the Act. CIT [1979] 118 ITR 243 and it was specifically held that the rebate on income-tax under Section 85a is to be calculated on the full amount of dividend. The Supreme Court expressed similar view in respect of the construction of the earlier Section 99 (1 ) (iv) and the subsequent Section 80m of the Act. ( 6 ) THE learned advocate, fairly, drew our attention to a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Distributors (Baroda) P. Ltd. v. Union of India [1985] 155 ITR 120, where the Supreme Court overruled its own decision in Cloth Traders (P.) Ltd. 's case [1979] 118 ITR 243, so far as Section 80m of the Act is concerned. The relevant observations from the judgment of the Supreme Court are noted as follows (at pages 134 and 135 of 155 ITR):" Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that in enacting Section 80m, the Legislature intended to grant relief with reference to the amount, of dividend computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act and not with reference to the full amount of dividend received from the paying company. It is difficult to imagine any reason why the Legislature should have intended to give relief with reference to the full amount of dividend received from the paying company when that is not the amount which is liable to suffer tax once again in the hands of the assessee. The Legislature could certainly be attributed with the intention to prevent double taxation but not to provide an additional benefit which would go beyond what is required for saving the amount of dividend from taxation once again in the hands of the assessee. Bearing in mind these prefatory observations in regard to the legislative object, we may now proceed to construe the language of Section 80m. . . . . . (at page 136 ). We may assume with the court in Cloth' Trader's case [1979] 118 1tr 243, that the words 'where the gross total income of an assessee. . . . . . . . . . . (at page 136 ). We may assume with the court in Cloth' Trader's case [1979] 118 1tr 243, that the words 'where the gross total income of an assessee. . . . . . includes any income by way of dividends from a domestic company ' are intended only to provide that a particular category of income, namely, income by way of dividends from a domestic company should form a component part of gross total income, irrespective of what is the quantum of the income so included but it is difficult to see how the factor of quantum can altogether be excluded when we talk of any category of income included in the gross total income. What is included in the gross total income in such a case is a particular quantum of income belonging to the specified category. Therefore, the words ' such income by way of dividends ' must be referable not only to the category of income included in the gross total income but also to the quantum of the income so included. It is obvious, as a matter of plain grammar, that the words ' such income by way of dividends ' must have reference to the income by way of dividends mentioned earlier and that would be income by way of dividends from a domestic company which is included in the gross total income. Consequently, in order to determine what is ' such income by way of dividends', we have to ask the question : what is the income by way of dividends from a domestic company included in the gross total income and that would obviously be the income by way of dividends computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It is difficult to appreciate how, when we are interpreting the words ' such income by way of dividends', we can make a dichotomy between the category of income by way of dividends included in the gross total income and the quantum of the income by way of dividends so included. . . . . . (at pages 137 and 138 ). . . . . . (at pages 137 and 138 ). It is, therefore, clear that whatever might have been the interpretation placed on Clause (iv) of Sub-section (1) of Section 99 and Section 85a, the correctness of which is not in issue before us, so far as Sub-section (1) of Section 80m is concerned, the deduction required to be allowed under that provision is liable to be calculated with reference to the amount of dividend computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act and forming part of the gross total income and not with reference to the full amount of dividend received by the assessee. " ( 7 ) THE learned advocate for the assessee submitted further that this court in a number of cases has followed the decision of the Supreme Court in Cloth Traders (P.) Ltd. 's case [1979] 118 ITR 243, and interpreted Section 85a in the same manner. He relied on CIT v. Indore Exporting and Importing Co. Ltd. [1976] Tax LR 471 (Cal ). ( 8 ) THE learned advocate for the assessee submitted that though the Supreme Court had overruled its earlier decision in Cloth Traders (P.) Ltd. 's case [1979] 118 ITR 243, such overruling was in respect of only Section 80m and not in respect of the earlier Section 85a. The Supreme Court has specifically noted in its judgment that whether the interpretation of Section 85a in the said judgment was correct or not was not before the Supreme Court. All that the Supreme Court has said in its judgment was that another view of the interpretation of the said Section 85a was possible. ( 9 ) THE learned advocate for the Revenue contended, on the other hand, that in view of the clear interpretation of the Supreme Court in Distributors (Baroda) P. Ltd. 's case [1985] 155 ITR 120, of Section 80m which was in pari materia with Section 85a, this court should interpret Section 85a in the same manner and the decision in Cloth Traders (P.) Ltd. 's case [1979] 118 ITR 243 of the Supreme Court and also of this court following the same were no longer good law. ( 10 ) ON a careful consideration, it appears to us that in Distributors (Baroda) P. Ltd. 's case [1985] 155 ITR 120, the Supreme Court advisedly and on consideration of the issues before it, pronounced on the interpretation of Section 80m only and not on the earlier section, viz. , Section 85a of the Act. So far as the earlier sections are concerned, the Supreme Court made it quite clear that the correctness of the said sections was not in issue before the court and further that another view possibly could be taken on the same sections. The Supreme Court also did not pronounce whether the views expressed earlier on the earlier section were incorrect. The observations of the Supreme Court are as follows (at page 131):"but here again we are not concerned in inquiring whether the view taken by the Bombay High Court in CIT v. New Great Insurance Co. 's case [1973] 90 ITR 348, is correct, though it must be conceded that it has been held to be correct in the decision in Cloth Traders' case We do feel, however, that another view in regard to the interpretation of Section 85a is possible. It is not at all unreasonable to construe the words 'income so included' as meaning the quantum of income by way of dividends included in the total income of the assessee. These words in the context in which they occur have obviously reference to quantum of the income by way of dividends to which the average rate of income-tax is to be applied. That quantum is defined by these words and in order to determine it, we have to ask the question : what is the income by way of dividends included in the total income and the answer can only be that it is income computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. But, as we have pointed out above, it is not necessary to consider whether the construction placed on Section 85a by the Bombay High Court in New Great Insurance Co. 's case [1973] 90 ITR 348, is correct or not, because we are not concerned here with the interpretation of Section 85a. . . . . . But, as we have pointed out above, it is not necessary to consider whether the construction placed on Section 85a by the Bombay High Court in New Great Insurance Co. 's case [1973] 90 ITR 348, is correct or not, because we are not concerned here with the interpretation of Section 85a. . . . . . " ( 11 ) IN that view, we do not feel called upon to interpret Section 85a in the same manner as Section 80m was construed by the Supreme Court in Distributors (Baroda) P. Ltd. 's case [1985] 155 ITR 120, in favour of the Revenue. The decision in Cloth Traders (P.) Ltd. 's case [1979] 118 ITR 243 to the extent it is not overruled is binding on us. ( 12 ) WE hold that the conclusion of the Tribunal that deduction under Section 85a was allowable only with reference to the net dividend income but not the gross dividend income as incorrect and that the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner should not have been sustained on that ground. We answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the assessee. ( 13 ) WE note that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had proceeded on the basis that rectification under Section 154 should not be allowed as there was no mistake apparent and only a debatable point of law has been raised by the assessee. The Tribunal appears to have abandoned this point altogether. The Revenue did not ask for a question on this aspect of the matter. We make it clear that we have not decided or adjudicated on this aspect in view of the limited question before us. ( 14 ) ON the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.