Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, V. M/s. M. B. Patil Construction Ltd., Aurangabad

ITA 2158/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1163 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 02-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 11-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIL CHAWARE
• Keywords: Depreciation; Additional depreciation
• Section: 143(3); 54; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A , PUNE , . . , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM . / ITA NO. 2158 /PN/20 1 3 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 08 - 09 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AURANGABAD . / APPELLANT VS. M/S. M.B. PATIL CONSTRUCTION LTD. , 115 - 116, SFS COMPLEX, APNA BAZAR, JALNA ROAD, AURANGABAD . / RESPONDENT PAN: A AECM0806B / APPELLANT BY : SHRI ANIL CHAWARE / RESPONDENT BY : S HRI NIKHIL PATHAK / DATE OF HEARING : 0 2 . 0 8 .201 6 / DATE OF PRONOUNCE MENT: 05 . 0 8 .201 6 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST ORDER OF C I T (A) , AURANGABAD , DATED 06 . 0 9 .20 1 3 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 08 - 09 AGAINST ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 1 54 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61 (I N SHORT THE ACT) . 2 . THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND S OF APPEAL: - A) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A), AURANGABAD, HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN AURANGABAD, HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN ITA NO . 2158 /PN/20 1 3 M/S. M.B. PATIL CONSTRUCTION LTD. 2 MANUFACTURING OR PRODUCING OF ANY ARTICLE OR THING, AND THEREFORE, ENTITLED FOR ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION U/S 32(IIA) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961. B) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE L D. CIT(A), AURANGABAD, HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS N.C. BUDHIRAJA & CO. & OTHERS [ 204 ITR 412 ] , HAS NO APPLICABILITY TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE DECISION IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. C) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A), AURANGABAD, HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ISSUE OF ALLOWING ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION IS A DEBATABLE ISSUE AND CANNOT BE RECTIFIED UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE RECTIFICA TION WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. SAURASHTRA KUTCH STOCK EXCHANGE [305 ITR 227 ] THAT NON - CONSIDERATION OF A DECISION OF JURISDICTION COURT OR OF THE SUPREME COURT CAN BE SAID TO BE A 'MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD'. D) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A), AURANGABAD, HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN EXAMINE THE RECORD, AND IF HE DISCOVERS THAT HE H AS MADE A MISTAKE, HE CAN RECTIFY THE ERROR, AND THE ERROR WHICH CAN BE CORRECTED, MAY BE AN ERROR OF FACT OR OF LAW, AS HELD BY THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF LTO VS. ASHOKA TEXTILES LTD. [41 ITR 732] E) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE L D. CIT (A), AURANGABAD, MAY BE CANCELLED AND THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, PASSED U/S 154 OF THE ACT, MAY BE RESTORED . F) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, MODIFY, DELETE AND AMEND ANY OF ' THE F) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, MODIFY, DELETE AND AMEND ANY OF ' THE GROUNDS, AS PER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. G) THE APPELLANT PRAYS LEAVE TO ADDUCE SUCH FURTHER EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CASE, AS THE OCCASION MAY DEMAND. 3. THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESS EE WAS ENTITLED TO CLAIM ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION UNDER SECTION 32(IIA) OF THE ACT. THE REVENUE IS ALSO AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN HOLDING THAT THE ISSUE OF ALLOWING ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION WAS A DEBATABLE ISSUE AND COULD NOT BE RECTIFIED UNDER SE CTION 154 OF THE ACT. 4. BRIEFLY, IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE WAS CIVIL CONTRACTOR ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION OF ROADS. FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 33,46,390/ - . THE A SSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED ITA NO . 2158 /PN/20 1 3 M/S. M.B. PATIL CONSTRUCTION LTD. 3 30.12.2010 AT ASSESSED INCOME OF RS. 50,22,460/ - . THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON VERIFICATION NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION ON PL ANT AND MACHINERY AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,68,21,044/ - IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, WHICH WAS ALLOWED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION, IT WAS NOT E NTITLED TO CLAIM THE DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION . SINCE THE MISTAKE WAS APPARENT FROM RECORD, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT HE WAS GOVERNMENT CIVIL CONTRACTOR A ND ALL THE MACHINERY INCLUDING TIPPERS / DUMPERS WAS USED IN MANUFACTURING PROCESS I.E. HOT - MIX PLANT, WE T - MIX PLANT, READY - MIX CONCRETE PLANT ON VARIOUS GOVERNMENT WORKS AND THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN THE BENEFIT OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION ON THE ABOVE MENTIO NED MACHINERIES. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT AS HE WAS GOVERNMENT CONTRACT OR, HE HAD ENGAGED IN ROAD MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY AND ALSO IN ROAD MANUFACTURING / CONSTRUCTION PROCESS, WHEREIN VARIOUS PLANT AND MACHINERY WERE UTILIZED AND HENCE CLAIM OF ADDITI ONAL DEPRECIATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE ON THE PREMISE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY ENGAG ED IN THE ACTIVITY OF CONSTRUCTION AND APPLYING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT VS. N.C. BUDHIRAJA & CO. & OTHERS REPORTED IN 204 ITR 412 (SC), WHEREIN THE APEX COURT OBSERVED THAT IF THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY, THEN IT COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURING OR PRODUCTION OF ANY ARTICLE OR THING , THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED . IN VIEW THEREOF, THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS WITHDRAWN. 5. THE CIT(A) HAS DELIBERATED UPON THE ISSUE AND DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOLDING THAT IT WAS DEBATABLE ISSUE AND COULD NOT BE CORREC TED UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. ITA NO . 2158 /PN/20 1 3 M/S. M.B. PATIL CONSTRUCTION LTD. 4 6 . THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 7 . SHRI ANIL CHAWARE APPEARED FOR THE REVENUE AND SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE AND PUT FORWARD THEIR CONTENTIONS. 8 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTE NTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IN RELATION TO THE APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. THE ACT PROVIDES THAT IN CASE ANY MISTAKE IS APPARENT FROM RECORD, THEN THE SAME CAN BE RECTIFIED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER OR ANY OTHER AUTHORITY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SAID SECTION. HOWEVER, THE MISTAKE SHOULD BE PATENT AND OBVIOUS AND SHOULD BE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD AND SHOULD NOT INVOLVE COMPLEX REASONING. THE DEBATABLE ISSUES ARE NOT OPEN TO RECTIFICAT ION UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION ON PLANT AND MACHINERY, WHICH IT CLAIMS TO HAVE UTILIZED NOT ONLY FOR ITS CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS BUT ALSO FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF RMC, WHICH IN TURN, WAS SOLD AS MATERIAL IN THE OPEN MARKET. THUS, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT IT WAS ENGAGED IN TWO ACTIVITIES I.E. IN CONSTRUCTION AND SECOND IN MANUFACTURE OF ARTICLE OR THING. THE PLANT AND MACHINERY WHICH WAS UTILIZED FOR SUCH MANUFACTURING ACTIV ITIES AND ALSO THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE BEING ELIGIBLE FOR ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION UNDER SECTION 32(IIA) OF THE ACT. THIS DEDUCTION WAS ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPLETING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U NDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE PASSING AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT, WITHDREW THE SAID ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE ON PLANT AND MACHINERY. IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE CLAIME D THAT IT WAS GOVERNMENT CIVIL CONTRACTOR AND ALL THE MACHINERY INCLUDING ITA NO . 2158 /PN/20 1 3 M/S. M.B. PATIL CONSTRUCTION LTD. 5 TIPPERS / DUMPERS WERE USED IN MANUFACTURING PROCESS I.E. HOT MIX PLANT, WET MIX PLANT, READY MIX CONCRETE PLANT ON VARIOUS GOVERNMENT WORKS. THE PLANT AND MACHINERY CONSISTS OF STO NE CRUSHER, HOT - MIX PLANT, CONCRETE MIX PLANT, PAVERS, LOADER, ROLLERS AND DUMPERS, ETC. THE ASSESSEE STRESSED THAT IT WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE AND PRODUCTION OF ANY ARTICLE OR THING AS IT WAS MANUFACTURING GITTI (METAL) WITH THE HELP OF STONE CRUSHER MACHINERY, WHICH WAS USED BOTH FOR CIVIL CONSTRUCTION AS WELL AS FOR SALE IN THE MARKET. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE METAL MANUFACTURED BY IT WAS SOLD EITHER INDEPENDENTLY OR AFTER MIXING WITH BITUMEN IN A REQUISITE PROPORTION, WHICH PR ODUCT WAS KNOWN AS READY MIXED CONCRETE (RMC). THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT IT HAD RECEIVED RS.25 LAKHS TOWARDS SALE OF METAL WHICH ESTABLISHED THAT IT WAS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF METALS. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED ADDITIONAL DEPREC IATION UNDER SECTION 32(1)(IIA) OF THE ACT ON SUCH MACHINERY, WHICH WAS TO BE ALLOWED IN VIEW OF VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS ON THE ISSUE. THE CIT(A) HAS REPRODUCED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER PARA 6 AT PAGES 3 TO 15 OF THE APPELLAT E ORDER. THE CIT(A) REFERRED TO THE RELIANCE PLACED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT VS. N.C. BUDHIRAJA & CO. OTHERS (SUPRA) AND OBSERVED AS UNDER: - 7.1 THE A.O. HAS HELD THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION U/S 32(1)(IIA) AS THE APPELLANT IS NOT ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING OR PRODUCTION OF ANY ARTICLE OR THING. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, THE A.O. HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. N.C. BUDHIRAJ A & CO. & OTHERS 204 ITR 412. IN THE SAID CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80HH(2)(I). THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS DISALLOWED THE SAID DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT AS A DEDUCTION RELATES TO THE VALUE OF DAM AND NOT TO THE VALUE OF GOODS MANUFACTURED AND USED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF DAM. IN THIS REGARD THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER - 'IT MAY BE THAT THE PETITIONER IS HIMSELF MANUFACTURING SOME OF THE ARTICLES LIKE GATES, WINDOWS AND DOORS WHICH GO INTO CONSTRUCTION OF A DA M BUT THAT MAKES LITTLE DIFFERENCE TO THE PRINCIPLE. THE PETITIONER IS NOT CLAIMING DEDUCTION PROVIDED BY SECTION 80 HH ON THE VALUE OF THE SAID MANUFACTURED ARTICLES BUT ON THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE DAM AS SUCH. IN SUCH A SITUATION, IT IS IMMATERIAL WHETHER T HE MANUFACTURED ARTICLES WHICH GO IN TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM ARE MANUFACTURED BY HIM OR PURCHASED BY HIM FROM ANOTHER PERSON. THERE IS NO YIELD TO EXPRESS ANY OPINION ON THE QUESTION WHAT WOULD BE THE POSITION, IF THE ITA NO . 2158 /PN/20 1 3 M/S. M.B. PATIL CONSTRUCTION LTD. 6 PETITIONER HAS CLAIMED THE BENEFI T OF SECTION 80 HH ON THE VALUE OF THE ARTICLES MANUFACTURED OR PRODUCED BY HIM WHICH ARTICLES HAVE GONE INTO / CONSUMED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE DAM.' 7.2 THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 80HH STATING THE ABOVE REASON. WHEREAS IN THE CASE UNDER APPEAL THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 32( 1 )(IIA) ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION ON THE COST OF THE NEW MACHINERY PURCHASED AFTER 31 ST MARCH, 2005. THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED RELATES TO THE COST OF MACHINERY AND NOT TO THE TOTAL VA LUE OF ROAD. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HA S MANUFACTURED READ Y TO MIX CONCRETE, METAL AND BITUMEN MIXTURE, ETC. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE ABOVE REFERRED CASE, HAS CLEARLY STATED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS MANUFACTURED CERTAIN ITEMS , WHI CH HAVE BEEN USED IN CONSTRUCTION OF DAM, THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF TOTAL VALUE OF DAM AND NOT IN RESPECT OF VALUE OF GOODS MANUFACTURED BY IT. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS REFRAINED FROM EXPRESSING ANY OPINION ON THE QUESTION AS TO WHAT WOULD BE THE POSITION, IF THE PETITIONER WOULD HAVE CLAIMED THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 80HH ON THE VALUE OF THE ARTICLES MANUFACTURED OR PRODUCED BY HIM WHICH ARTICLES HAVE GONE INTO / CONSUMED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE DAM. IN THE CASE UNDER APPEAL THE APPELLANT HAS USED VARIOUS ITEMS MANUFACTURED BY IT IN CONSTRUCTION OF ROAD AND HAS ALSO SOLD PART OF THE MANUFACTURED GOODS. THEREFORE, THE DECISION RELIED ON BY THE A.O. IS DISTINGUISHABLE ON THE ABOVE FACTS. 9 . THEREAFTER, THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MANUFACTURED READY MIX CONCRETE, GIFFTI, METAL AND BITUMEN MIXTURE USING READY MIX PLANT, STONE CRUSHER, HOT MIX PLANT AND THE SAID MANUFACTURED ITEMS WERE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF ROADS BY USING EXCAVATORS, DUMPERS, TIPPERS, ETC. THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ACTIVITY AMOUNTED TO MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY IN VIEW OF VARIOUS DECISIONS. THE CIT(A) VIDE PARA 7.4 FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ONLY MANUFACTURED AND SOLD READY MIX CONCRETE AMOUNTING TO RS.15,26,931/ - AND METAL A MOUNTING TO RS.25 LAKHS BUT ALSO USED RMC IN ITS CIVIL CONTRACTS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF METAL, HOTMIX CONCRETE AND BITUMEN MIXTURE, WHICH WAS USED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROADS AND WAS ALSO PARTLY SOLD IN THE MA RKET, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES AND THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT (SUPRA) WAS NOT APPLICABLE. THE CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ISSUE UNDER APPEAL WAS CERTAINLY A DEBATABLE ISSUE AN D COULD NOT BE RECTIFIED UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN T.S. BALARAM, ITO VS. VOLKART BROTHERS ITA NO . 2158 /PN/20 1 3 M/S. M.B. PATIL CONSTRUCTION LTD. 7 (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC) FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD MUST BE AN OBVI OUS AND PATENT MISTAKE AND NOT SOMETHING WHICH COULD BE ESTABLISHED BY A LONG DRAWN PROCESS OF REASONING ON POINTS ON WHICH THERE MAY BE TWO OPINIONS AND THE DECISION ON THE DEBATABLE POINT OF LAW WAS NOT MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. FURTHER, RELIANC E WAS PLACED ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN HERO CYCLES (P) LTD. (1997) 94 TAXMAN 271 (SC) FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT RECTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT COULD ONLY BE MADE WHEN GLARING MISTAKE OF FACT OR LAW HAS BEEN COMMITTED BY THE OFFICER PASSING ORDER AND IT BECOMES APPARENT FROM RECORD. HOWEVER, RECTIFICATION WAS NOT POSSIBLE WHERE THE QUESTION WAS DEBATABLE. 1 0 . THE QUESTION OF ALLOWABILITY OF CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION UNDER SECTION 32(IIA) OF THE ACT IS THUS, TO BE DECIDED AFTER CONSIDERING THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE IN TOTALITY. WHERE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT IT WAS ENGAGED NOT ONLY IN CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS BUT ALSO WAS ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF READY MIX CONCRETE, WHICH WAS UTILIZED FOR ITS CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS AN D WAS ALSO SOLD IN THE OPEN MARKET AND HENCE, IT WAS ENTITLED TO THE AFORESAID CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION ON SUCH PLANT AND MACHINERY UNDER SECTION 32(IIA) OF THE ACT. THE SAID ISSUE BEING A DEBATABLE ISSUE IS NOT OPEN FOR RECTIFICATION BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) HAS ELABORATELY CONSIDERED ALL THE ASPECTS OF THE ISSUE, WHICH WE HAVE REFERRED IN THE PARAS HEREINABOVE AND WHERE THE ISSUE IS DEBATABLE, THE SAME IS NOT AMENABLE TO THE RECTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT, WHICH PROVISIONS ARE TO BE APPLIED IN CASE THE MISTAKE IS APPARENT ON THE RECORD I.E. IT SHOULD BE AN OBVIOUS AND PATENT MISTAKE AND NOT SOMETHING WHICH HAS TO BE DRAWN BY LONG PROCESS OF REASONING. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CI T(A) IN NOT APPLYING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT VS. N.C. BUDHIRAJA & CO. & OTHERS (SUPRA). HOWEVER, THE FACTS OF THE SAID CASE ARE AT VARIANCE TO THE FACTS BEFORE US ITA NO . 2158 /PN/20 1 3 M/S. M.B. PATIL CONSTRUCTION LTD. 8 AND THE SAID RATIO THUS, C ANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE PRESENT CA SE. UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF CIT(A), WE DISMISS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 1 1 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 5 TH DAY OF AUGUST , 201 6 . SD/ - SD/ - ( R.K. PANDA ) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; D ATED : 5 TH AUGUST , 201 6 . GCVSR / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE A PPELLANT ; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE C I T (A) , AURANGABAD ; 3. ( ) / THE C I T (A) , AURANGABAD ; 4. / THE C I T (CENTRAL) , NAGPUR ; 5. , , / DR A , ITAT, PUNE; 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE