Govinda Bhat, C.J.These petitions u/s 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Madras, are for a direction to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, to state a case and refer the following question of law said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal made in R. As. Nos. 180 to 183/Bang/1974-75 dated 4th October, 1974 :

"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the interest paid to Shri Naraindas Moolchand cannot be disallowed u/s 40(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961

2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that section 154 was not applicable to this case "

2. The Income Tax Officer, in the assessment made by him, gave deduction for the interest paid by the firm to the Hindu undivided family of Naraindas Moolchand, one of the partners of the firm. Subsequently, the Income Tax Officer in the purported exercise of the power u/s 154 of the Act, rectified the said orders of assessment on the ground that u/s 40(b) of the Act any interest paid to the partner has to be disallowed. The said orders of rectification were reversed on appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner were affirmed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal, in paragraph 4 of its order, has stated that the Income Tax Officer had also accepted the declaration made by the partner, Shri Naraindas Moolchand, to the effect that the interest paid by the firm was to the Hindu undivided family of which Sri Naraindas Moolchand happened to be Karta and the said interest had been assessed in the hands of the Hindu undivided family. The Tribunal was of the opinion that this is not a case where there cannot be more than one view and applied the principle laid down in T.S. Balaram, Income Tax Officer, Company Circle IV, Bombay Vs. Volkart Brothers, Bombay, that the power of rectification u/s 154 could be resorted to only where conceivably there cannot be more than one view.

3. On the applications made u/s 256(1) the Tribunal declined to state a case and refer the question on the ground that the view taken by the Tribunal that section 154 of the Act cannot be invoked for the purpose of rectification is based on settled principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court and, therefore, there is no referable question of law.

4. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal that there is no referable question of law as section 154 of the Act cannot be invoked where conceivably there can be more than one view and, according to one view, deduction of interest paid to the Hindu undivided family of which the partner is the karta, is allowable. Agreeing with the view of the Tribunal, we dismiss these petitions without costs.