AJIT K. SENGUPTA, J. ( 1 ) IN this reference under Section 256 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made at the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred by the Tribunal for the opinion of this court:"whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no mistake in the Income-tax Officer's order granting relief under Section 91 in respect of Rs. 14,98,034 which could be rectified under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?" ( 2 ) THE facts admitted and/or found by the Tribunal are as under : the assessee is a banking company. It held foreign currency balances at its authorised branches. By reason of the devaluation of the Indian rupee on June 6, 1966, a profit of Rs. 1,17,77,286 arose to the assessee-bank. These profits, although initially returned by the asscssee-bank as its income, were later claimed to be exempt as of casual and non-recurring nature within the meaning of Section 10 (3) of the said Act. This contention. was not accepted by the Income-tax Officer who held that the mere fact that the Malaysian income-tax authorities had excluded the devaluation profits from taxation did not assist the assessee in India as the income-tax law was different in this country. Applying several decisions of the Supreme Court, the Income-tax Officer proceeded to tax the said sum of Rs. 1,17,77, 286 as business profit earned by the assessee as an authorised dealer in foreign exchange. The aforesaid devaluation profit included an aggregate sum of Rs. 28,56,666 in respect of Kuala Lumpur and Penang branches of the assessee-bank. ( 3 ) IN this reference, we are only concerned with the devaluation profit of Rs. 28,56,666 arising in the Kuala Lumpur and Penang branches. The assessce-bank was assessed in Malaysia on a total income of- Rs. 14,98,034. However, the Malaysian income, which was subjected to tax in India, was Rs. 37,81,160. While completing the original assessment, the Income-tax Officer granted D. I. T. relief under Section 91 on a sum of Rs. 14,98,034 being the lower of the incomes assessed in India and in Malaysia. Subsequently, he invoked the provisions of Section 154 on the ground that the devaluation profit of Rs. 28,56,666 not having been subjected to tax in Malaysia, the doubly taxed income was not Rs. 14,98,034 being the lower of the incomes assessed in India and in Malaysia. Subsequently, he invoked the provisions of Section 154 on the ground that the devaluation profit of Rs. 28,56,666 not having been subjected to tax in Malaysia, the doubly taxed income was not Rs. 37,81,160 as was erroneously assumed at the time of the original assessment, but was actually Rs. 9,24,484 (Rs. 37,81,160 minus devaluation profit of Rs. 28,56,666) included therein. The Income-tax Officer took the view that since Rs. 9,24,494 is less than Rs. 14,98,054 as assessed in Malaysia, the D. I. T. relief can only be granted with reference to the said sum of Rs. 9,24,494. According to the Income-tax Officer, it was clearly a mistake apparent from the record. ( 4 ) ON appeal by the assessee, both the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and later the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held that the issue was clearly debatable and, therefore, outside the purview of the provisions of Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. ( 5 ) WE have considered the facts as found by the Tribunal in this case. We are not impressed with the view taken by the Tribunal that the issue in this case is debatable. It is an undisputed fact that the Malaysian income which has been subjected to tax in India in the sum of Rs. 37,81,160 included devaluation profit of Rs. 28,56,666 in respect of the said two Malaysian branches, namely, Kuala Lumpur and Penang. It is also an admitted fact that the devaluation profit of Rs. 28,56,666 was not subjected to tax in Malaysia. In this view of the matter, it is clear beyond any reasonable doubt that what has been doubly taxed in India is only the balance sum of Rs. 9,24,484. No debate is necessary to come to this finding. Double taxation relief under Section 91 can be allowed only in respect of that part of the income which has been doubly taxed in this country as well as overseas. Since what can be said to have been doubly taxed in this case is only Rs. 9,24,484, double taxation relief was wrongly allowed by the Income-tax Officer originally with reference to Rs. 14,98,084. In our view, the Income-tax Officer correctly invoked the provisions of Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in this case. Since what can be said to have been doubly taxed in this case is only Rs. 9,24,484, double taxation relief was wrongly allowed by the Income-tax Officer originally with reference to Rs. 14,98,084. In our view, the Income-tax Officer correctly invoked the provisions of Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in this case. We accordingly answer the question referred by the Tribunal in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs.