DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4) , MUMBAI V. M/S ESSEL MINNING & INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 3160/MUM/2022

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai, which had set aside the rectification order passed by the Assessing Officer concerning the disallowance of a deduction claimed under section 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by M/s Essel Minning & Industries Ltd. The Assessing Officer had initially allowed the deduction but later sought to withdraw it, claiming a mistake apparent from the record in the rectification order. The CIT(A) found no such mistake, leading to the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal's decision affirmed the CIT(A)'s findings, emphasizing that the issue was not a mistake apparent from the record but a debatable point of law.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 123421 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-04-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 01-03-2023
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 13-12-2022
• Other Referred Cases: T S Balaram Vs Volkart Bros (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Rectification of order; Assessment record
• Section: 143(3); 10B; 250; 153C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA No. 3160/MUM/2022 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. CIT CC-1(4), 902, 9 th Floor, Pratishtha Bhavan, Old CGO Bldg. (Annexe), M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Vs. M/s Essel Minning & Industries Ltd., 18 th floor, Industry House, 10, Cama Street, Kolkata-700017. PAN No. AAACI 1747 H Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Yogesh Thar/ Ms. Sukanya Jayaram/ Mr. Karan Jain, AR Revenue by : Mrs. Somogyan Pal, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 02/03/2023 Date of pronouncement : 18/04/2023 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order dated 12.10.2022 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai for assessment year 2010-11 in relation to rectification order passed by the Assessing Officer. The grounds raised by the Revenue are reproduced as under: i. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) is justified in deleting the disallowances u/s 10B without going into merit of the case discussed in the rectification order?" ii. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case a upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in T S Balaram Vs Volkart Bros(1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC) while the issue is not related as to whether it is apparent mistake or not but it is relatedtot assessee's claim u/s 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961?" iii. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT (A) is justified in the appeal of the assessee without going into the provisions of section 10B deduction and the eligibility to claim the same. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that in the assessment order dated 28/3/2013 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) Kolkata,allocated common eligible for deduction u/s 10B of the Act Keonjhar (Orrisa)and corresponding deduction u/s 10B of the Act claimed by the assessee assessment order dated 29.03.2016 of the Act, the Assessing Officer i.e. DCIT Central Circle Mumbai maintained allowed by the Assessing Officer in assessment Act. The assessment order passed Assessing Officer was First Appellate Authority. Further, the Tribunal in ITA No. 1004 and 1294/Kol/2014 partially deleted the additio M/s Essel Minning & Industries Ltd. the disallowances u/s 10B without going into merit of the case discussed in the rectification order?" "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) is justified on relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in T S Balaram Vs Volkart Bros(1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC) while the issue is not related as to whether it is apparent mistake or not but it is relatedtotheallowability/ disallowability of the assessee's claim u/s 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961?" "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT (A) is justified in the appeal of the assessee without going into the provisions of section 10B deduction and the eligibility to claim the same. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that in the assessment dated 28/3/2013 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), the Assessing Officer i.e. common business/office expense to the Unit eligible for deduction u/s 10B of the Act i.e. Unit at Kasia, Distt and corresponding deduction u/s 10B of the Act claimed by the assessee was reduced accordingly. Further, in the dated 29.03.2016 passed u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) the Assessing Officer i.e. DCIT Central Circle maintained the deduction u/s 10B of the Act, Assessing Officer in assessment order 143(3) of the . The assessment order passed u/s 153C of the Act as challenged by the assessee before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. Further, the Tribunal in ITA No. 1004 and 1294/Kol/2014 partially deleted the addition made by the M/s Essel Minning & Industries Ltd. 2 ITA No. 3160/M/2022 the disallowances u/s 10B without going into merit of the case discussed in the rectification order?" "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the nd in law, the Ld. CIT (A) is justified on relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in T S Balaram Vs Volkart Bros(1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC) while the issue is not related as to whether it is apparent mistake or not but it is heallowability/ disallowability of the assessee's claim u/s 10B of the Income Tax Act, "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT (A) is justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee without going into the provisions of section 10B deduction and the eligibility Briefly stated, facts of the case are that in the assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, he Assessing Officer i.e. DCIT Circle-5, expense to the Unit i.e. Unit at Kasia, Distt and corresponding deduction u/s 10B of the Act . Further, in the passed u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) the Assessing Officer i.e. DCIT Central Circle-1(4), of the Act, which was order 143(3) of the u/s 153C of the Act by the challenged by the assessee before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. Further, the Tribunal in ITA No. 1004 and n made by the Assessing Officer in the original assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer in March 2021 issued a show cause for carrying out rectification in the order r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act in the case of year 2009-10 and 2010 mistake apparent from record and deduction u/s 10B was allowed wrongly. It was stated by the Assessing Officer that the in respect of which deduction establishment and in fact it was established by way of transfer of already existing unit. The Assessing Officer accordingly in order dated 31.03.2021 withdrawn the claim of deduction u/s 10B of the Act for the year under “7. The submissions filed by the assessee have been perused carfully, however, the same are found to be unacceptable. The first contention of the assessce is that order wis. 143/3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been passed on 28.03.2013 and there is no scope of rectification of the said order. In this regard, it is clarified that order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 28.03.2013 has merged with order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 1531C) of the Income Tax Act, Further, rectification of mistakes apparent from records has been proposed in respect of order passed u/s. 143(3) rawiss 153(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 29.03.2016. Hence, as per the time limit provided in Income Tax Act, 1 in respect of rectification u/$. 154 and its further extension of time limit due to COVID 19 Pandemic, order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 29.03.2016 is not time barred for the purpose of passing of rectification Or The second contention of the assessce is that each and every claim referred in the SON were allowed after detailed M/s Essel Minning & Industries Ltd. Assessing Officer in the original assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer in March 2021 issued a show cause for carrying out rectification in the orders passed u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act in the case of the assessee for assessment and 2010-11 to 2011-12 stating that there was a mistake apparent from record and deduction u/s 10B was allowed wrongly. It was stated by the Assessing Officer that the deduction u/s 10B was claimed establishment and in fact it was established by way of transfer of existing unit. The Assessing Officer accordingly in order dated 31.03.2021 withdrawn the claim of deduction u/s 10B of the for the year under consideration,observing as under: 7. The submissions filed by the assessee have been perused carfully, however, the same are found to be unacceptable. The first contention of the assessce is that order wis. 143/3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been ed on 28.03.2013 and there is no scope of rectification of the said order. In this regard, it is clarified that order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 28.03.2013 has merged with order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 1531C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 29.03.2016. Further, rectification of mistakes apparent from records has been proposed in respect of order passed u/s. 143(3) rawiss 153(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 29.03.2016. Hence, as per the time limit provided in Income Tax Act, 1 in respect of rectification u/$. 154 and its further extension of time limit due to COVID 19 Pandemic, order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 29.03.2016 is not time barred for the purpose of passing of rectification Order u/s. 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The second contention of the assessce is that each and every claim referred in the SON were allowed after detailed M/s Essel Minning & Industries Ltd. 3 ITA No. 3160/M/2022 Assessing Officer in the original assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer in March 2021 issued a show passed u/s 153C the assessee for assessment 12 stating that there was a mistake apparent from record and deduction u/s 10B was allowed wrongly. It was stated by the Assessing Officer that the ‘Unit Kasia’, u/s 10B was claimed, was not a new establishment and in fact it was established by way of transfer of existing unit. The Assessing Officer accordingly in order dated 31.03.2021 withdrawn the claim of deduction u/s 10B of the observing as under: 7. The submissions filed by the assessee have been perused carfully, however, the same are found to be unacceptable. The first contention of the assessce is that order wis. 143/3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been ed on 28.03.2013 and there is no scope of rectification of the said order. In this regard, it is clarified that order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 28.03.2013 has merged with order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 1961 dated 29.03.2016. Further, rectification of mistakes apparent from records has been proposed in respect of order passed u/s. 143(3) rawiss 153(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 29.03.2016. Hence, as per the time limit provided in Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of rectification u/$. 154 and its further extension of time limit due to COVID 19 Pandemic, order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 29.03.2016 is not time barred for the purpose of passing of der u/s. 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The second contention of the assessce is that each and every claim referred in the SON were allowed after detailed verification which is evident from the assessment records. It is pertinent to mention here that any allowed by the Assessing Officer in earlier orders after detailed Induification does not bar the Assessing Officer to rectify the said order u/s. 154of the Income Tax Act, 1961 if subsequently any mistake apparent from records is not Therefore, the contentions raised by the assessee are not acceptable and accordingly, rejected. 8. In view of the above discussion, order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 29.03.2016 is hereby rectihed in the followin 8.1The assessee had claimed deduction u/s 10B of Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs. 54,78,34,905/ Kasia, Dist Keonjhar (Orissa) and the same was allowed. Unit at Kasia in respect of which 10B deduction claimed was not a new establis transier of an already existing unit. In view of the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961, the Kaisa unit is not eligible for deduction u/S 10B of Income Tax Act, 1961 and entire deduction claimed u/s'10B of Income Tax Act, 54,78,34,905/ (Orissa) is hereby disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee for AY 2010 apparent from the records is rectified u/s. 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. in view of the above discussion, the total income of the assessce for Assessment Year 2010 under Particulars Total income as per order u/s 153C r.w.s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 12.04.2018 Add: Disallowance of deduction u/s 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Total income M/s Essel Minning & Industries Ltd. verification which is evident from the assessment records. It is pertinent to mention here that any claim of the assessee allowed by the Assessing Officer in earlier orders after detailed Induification does not bar the Assessing Officer to rectify the said order u/s. 154of the Income Tax Act, 1961 if subsequently any mistake apparent from records is not Therefore, the contentions raised by the assessee are not acceptable and accordingly, rejected. 8. In view of the above discussion, order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 29.03.2016 is hereby rectihed in the followingmanner 8.1The assessee had claimed deduction u/s 10B of Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs. 54,78,34,905/- in respect of unit at Kasia, Dist Keonjhar (Orissa) and the same was allowed. Unit at Kasia in respect of which 10B deduction claimed was not a new establishment It was established by way of transier of an already existing unit. In view of the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961, the Kaisa unit is not eligible for deduction u/S 10B of Income Tax Act, 1961 and entire deduction claimed u/s'10B of Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs. 54,78,34,905/- in respect of unit at Kasia, Dist Keonjhar (Orissa) is hereby disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee for AY 2010-11. The mistake apparent from the records is rectified u/s. 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. in view of the above discussion, the total income of the assessce for Assessment Year 2010-11 is recomputed as Particulars Amount in Rs. Amount in Rs. Total income as per order u/s 153C r.w.s. 250 of the tax Act, 1961 dated 12.04.2018 687,07,15,667/ Disallowance of deduction u/s 10B of the Income Tax 54,78,34,905/- 54,78,34,905/ Total income 741,85,50,572/ M/s Essel Minning & Industries Ltd. 4 ITA No. 3160/M/2022 verification which is evident from the assessment records. It claim of the assessee allowed by the Assessing Officer in earlier orders after detailed Induification does not bar the Assessing Officer to rectify the said order u/s. 154of the Income Tax Act, 1961 if subsequently any mistake apparent from records is noticed. Therefore, the contentions raised by the assessee are not 8. In view of the above discussion, order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 29.03.2016 8.1The assessee had claimed deduction u/s 10B of Income in respect of unit at Kasia, Dist Keonjhar (Orissa) and the same was allowed. Unit at Kasia in respect of which 10B deduction claimed was hment It was established by way of transier of an already existing unit. In view of the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961, the Kaisa unit is not eligible for deduction u/S 10B of Income Tax Act, 1961 and entire 1961 of Rs. in respect of unit at Kasia, Dist Keonjhar (Orissa) is hereby disallowed and added back to the total 11. The mistake apparent from the records is rectified u/s. 154 of the Income 9. in view of the above discussion, the total income of the 11 is recomputed as Amount in Rs. 87,07,15,667/- 54,78,34,905/- 741,85,50,572/- 3. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) held that there was no mistake apparent from record and thus he cancelled 154 of the Act passed by the Assessing Officer observing as under: “5. I have carefully perused the facts of the case and the order of rectification passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 154 of the Act. In this regard, it would be the record an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions; a decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from record. 5.7In the instant case, the mistake as pointed out by the Assessing Officer is not apparent on the record; not obvious and patent mistake. Thus the ratio laid'down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Volkart Bros (supra) is squarely applicable here. 5.8In view of the above facts I am of the considered view that the order passed by the Assessing Officer us. 154 of the ITA is not a mistake which is apparent from record and hence the order passed by the Assessing Officer us. 154 of the ITA does not hold ground. This appellant are allowed. 4. Before us, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that assessee was not entitled for deduction u/s 10B of the Act as the unit for claimed, was already in existence. He further submitted the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the issue on merit and examined the claim of deduction u/s 10B of the Act. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee on the other hand relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that during assessment proceedings, 56G of the Act ( PB-4) was filed , M/s Essel Minning & Industries Ltd. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) held that there was no mistake apparent from record and thus he cancelled 154 of the Act passed by the Assessing Officer observing as under: I have carefully perused the facts of the case and the order of rectification passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 154 of the Act. In this regard, it would be the record an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions; a decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from record. 7In the instant case, the mistake as pointed out by the Assessing Officer is not apparent on the record; not obvious and patent mistake. Thus the ratio laid'down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Volkart Bros (supra) is squarely applicable f the above facts I am of the considered view that the order passed by the Assessing Officer us. 154 of the ITA is not a mistake which is apparent from record and hence the order passed by the Assessing Officer us. 154 of the ITA does not hold ground. This ground of appeal No. 3 to 5 of the appellant are allowed.” Before us, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that assessee was not entitled for deduction u/s 10B of for which deduction u/s 10B of the Act was already in existence. He further submitted the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the issue on merit and examined the claim of deduction u/s 10B of the Act. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee on the other hand relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted during assessment proceedings, the certificate in Form No. 4) was filed , the clause 7 of which shows that M/s Essel Minning & Industries Ltd. 5 ITA No. 3160/M/2022 On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) held that there was no mistake apparent from record and thus he cancelled the order u/s 154 of the Act passed by the Assessing Officer observing as under: I have carefully perused the facts of the case and the order of rectification passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 154 of the Act. In this regard, it would be the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions; a decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake 7In the instant case, the mistake as pointed out by the Assessing Officer is not apparent on the record; not obvious and patent mistake. Thus the ratio laid'down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Volkart Bros (supra) is squarely applicable f the above facts I am of the considered view that the order passed by the Assessing Officer us. 154 of the ITA is not a mistake which is apparent from record and hence the order passed by the Assessing Officer us. 154 of the ITA ground of appeal No. 3 to 5 of the Before us, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that assessee was not entitled for deduction u/s 10B of u/s 10B of the Act has been was already in existence. He further submitted the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the issue on merit and examined the claim of deduction u/s 10B of the Act. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee on the other hand relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted the certificate in Form No. clause 7 of which shows that the Unit commenced manufacturing on 14.06.200 Tarriff area Unit . The ld Counsel submitted that undertaki in domestic tariff are eligible for deduction u/s 10B benefit on conversion into Export oriented unit, as Circular No. 1/05 dated 06.01.2005 reproduced said circular in impugned order. assessee filed copy of the submission Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. 5. We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the Assessing Off rectified the assessment order on the ground that there is a mistake apparent from record. However, on perusal, the impugned order u/s 154 passed by the Assessing Officer, we do not find as how there was a mistake apparent from record in the asses The assesee has duly mentioned in the certificate in Form No. 56G that the ‘unit’ commenced manufacturing on 14.06.2013 as a domestic tariff area unit which the CBDT vide Circular (supra) has permitted for eligibility of deduction u/s 10B of t Assessing Officer get authority to invoke section 154 only substantiates that mistake is apparent from record. Assessing Officer has nowhere mentioned from where he has found that unit of the assessee is unit. The mistake may be of general, arithmetical & clerical error. It may also be of misreading a clear provision orapplication of wrong M/s Essel Minning & Industries Ltd. the Unit commenced manufacturing on 14.06.2003 Tarriff area Unit . The ld Counsel submitted that undertaki in domestic tariff are eligible for deduction u/s 10B benefit on conversion into Export oriented unit, as mentioned Circular No. 1/05 dated 06.01.2005. The Ld Assessing officer has reproduced said circular in impugned order. The Ld. Co of the submission which was filed before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the Assessing Off rectified the assessment order on the ground that there is a mistake apparent from record. However, on perusal, the impugned order u/s 154 passed by the Assessing Officer, we do not find as how there was a mistake apparent from record in the asses has duly mentioned in the certificate in Form No. 56G commenced manufacturing on 14.06.2013 as a domestic tariff area unit which the CBDT vide Circular (supra) has permitted for eligibility of deduction u/s 10B of t Assessing Officer get authority to invoke section 154 only that mistake is apparent from record. Assessing Officer has nowhere mentioned from where he has found that unit of the assessee is not new and isreconstituted from the old The mistake may be of general, arithmetical & clerical error. It may also be of misreading a clear provision orapplication of wrong M/s Essel Minning & Industries Ltd. 6 ITA No. 3160/M/2022 3 as a domestic Tarriff area Unit . The ld Counsel submitted that undertaking setup in domestic tariff are eligible for deduction u/s 10B benefit on mentioned by CBDT in . The Ld Assessing officer has The Ld. Counsel of the was filed before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the Assessing Officer has rectified the assessment order on the ground that there is a mistake apparent from record. However, on perusal, the impugned order u/s 154 passed by the Assessing Officer, we do not find as how there was a mistake apparent from record in the assessment order. has duly mentioned in the certificate in Form No. 56G commenced manufacturing on 14.06.2013 as a domestic tariff area unit which the CBDT vide Circular (supra) has permitted for eligibility of deduction u/s 10B of the Act. The Assessing Officer get authority to invoke section 154 only, if he that mistake is apparent from record. In the case, the Assessing Officer has nowhere mentioned from where he has found tituted from the old The mistake may be of general, arithmetical & clerical error. It may also be of misreading a clear provision orapplication of wrong provision of Act or erroneous application of same or applying an inapplicable provision oroverloo following of decision of Jurisdictional High Court/ supreme court etc. The Assessing Officer cannot invoke provision of section 154 of the Act, whenissue involved is debatable the fresh facts is required decision in the garb of rectification. In the case, nowhere in the impugned rectification order has mentioned that how allowing deduction u/s 10B in respect of t from record. In the circumstances, we do not find any error in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue CIT(A) has rejected the rectification order of the Assessing Officer threshold , being not under scope of rectification to adjudicate the issue on merit. The grounds of the Revenue are accordingly dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/- (KULDIP SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 18/04/2023 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT M/s Essel Minning & Industries Ltd. provision of Act or erroneous application of same or applying an inapplicable provision oroverlooking a mandatory provision or non following of decision of Jurisdictional High Court/ supreme court he Assessing Officer cannot invoke provision of section 154 of , whenissue involved is debatable or where investigation of the fresh facts is required. The assessing officer can’t review its decision in the garb of rectification. In the case, nowhere in the impugned rectification order has mentioned that how allowing deduction u/s 10B in respect of the unit was a mistake apparent In the circumstances, we do not find any error in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue-in-dispute. Further, oncethe ld has rejected the rectification order of the Assessing Officer not under scope of rectification, he to adjudicate the issue on merit. The grounds of the Revenue are accordingly dismissed. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 18/04/2023. Sd/- KULDIP SINGH) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : M/s Essel Minning & Industries Ltd. 7 ITA No. 3160/M/2022 provision of Act or erroneous application of same or applying an king a mandatory provision or non- following of decision of Jurisdictional High Court/ supreme court he Assessing Officer cannot invoke provision of section 154 of or where investigation of . The assessing officer can’t review its decision in the garb of rectification. In the case, nowhere in the impugned rectification order has mentioned that how allowing he unit was a mistake apparent In the circumstances, we do not find any error in the dispute. Further, oncethe ld has rejected the rectification order of the Assessing Officer at he is not required to adjudicate the issue on merit. The grounds of the Revenue are In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 04/2023. OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// M/s Essel Minning & Industries Ltd. BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai M/s Essel Minning & Industries Ltd. 8 ITA No. 3160/M/2022 BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai