11,53,374/ whereas it was actually allowable at Rs.
The Revenue is in appeal.
He numbered that the mistake to be rectified had to be apparent from the record it had to be an obvious mistake and number something on which there might companyceivably be two points of view.
The High Court answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue the following question Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in upholding the finding of the learned C.I.T. A who cancelled the order of the Assessing Officer passed on 18 6 1991 under Section 154 of the Income tax Act, 1961?
It was then rectified under Section 154 of the Income tax Act, 1961 because the assessing officer found that depreciation under the Companies Act had been allowed at Rs.
It also opined that these were questions of fact and numberquestion of law arose.
12,00,368/ as against unabsorbed loss of Rs.
The High Court answered the reference, as aforestated, in favour of the assessee, holding that the Tribunal and the Commissioner of Appeals were justified in taking the view that numberoccasion for rectification arose.
The Income tax Appellate Tribunal companyfirmed the view taken by the Commissioner Appeals .
In appeal, the Commissioner of Income tax Appeals cancelled the order under Section 154.
The order of assessment was made on 30th March, 1990.
11,38,057/ .
He also found that unabsorbed depreciation had been taken at Rs.
