JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was as follows :–– The writ petitioner No.1 is a private limited company (hereinafter referred to as "the company") and the writ petitioner No.2 is a share holder of the company. In this Writ application the writ petitioners have challenged an order dated 30th November, 1994 passed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (For short 'the Act') by the Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal-V, Calcutta affirming an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Company's circle-9(1) Calcutta) under Section 154 of the Act relating to the Assessment year 1990-91. On 31st December, 1990 the petitioners filed a return for the assessment year 1990-91 showing an income of Rs. 33,100/- enclosing therewith the statutory audit as also tax audit under Section 44 AB of the Act. An intimation was received under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act by the company wherefrom it appears that the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company circle 9(1) accepted the said return without making any adjustment. Subsequently thereafter the company received a notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act by which the company was directed to furnish information and documents specified in the enclosure to the said orders. According to the company they duly complied with the said notice and produced all information and documents as required by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, from time to time. It was brought to the notice of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, company circle (hereinafter referred to as 'Assistant Commissioner') of the fact that it was a tenant in respect of an office premises of the writ petitioners in New Delhi at 23 A, Ansari Road, Daria Ganj, New Delhi since 1940-41 for which the company did not have to pay anything excepting the monthly rent of the said premises. In the previous year relevant for the assessment year 1990-91 the company surrendered the said tenancy right for which the company received a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- which they showed in the profit and loss appropriation account under the head "consideration money on surrender of tenancy right." According to the company the said sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- received by it was not taxable either as income or casual gains in view of several decisions referred to before the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax by the company by filing to letters. 1,50,000/- received by it was not taxable either as income or casual gains in view of several decisions referred to before the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax by the company by filing to letters. The matter was preferred to the deputy commissioner of Income Tax to seek his direction in the matter of addition of Rs. 1,50,000/- under the head 'other source'. It appears from the record that the deputy commissioner of income tax, Range-9 directed the assistant commissioner of Income Tax to treat the said sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as capital receipt and assessable to capital gains. On 23rd March of 1993 a notice was received from the Assistant Commissioner directing the company to file an explanation regarding taxability of Rs. 1,10,000/- as capital gains and also to produce other correct papers in support of the claim of the company that the said sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- was not taxable. A reply to the show cause notice was filed on 24th of March, 1993 by the company wherein it was pointed out that the Supreme Court in Gasper v. Commissioner of Income Tax held that the tax was not payable by the assessee although the Supreme Court for technical reasons dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Alternatively it was pointed out by the company in the said letter that since the company had invested the entire sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- in acquiring another property by utilising Rs. 1,50,000/- no capital gains would be leviable in view of Section 54 of the Act. However, subsequently an assessment order was received by the company on 26th of March, 1995 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 143(3)/144(9) of the Act wherefrom it appears that the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax computed the total income of the company at Rs. 3,570/- and computed the profit under Section 150 J of the Act at Rs. 33,105/-. From the said assessment order it would also appear that the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax accepted the submissions of the company on this question of taxability of Rs. 1,50,000/- which was received by the company on surrender of tenancy right of the New Delhi Office, the order of assessment is annexed with the writ application and marked as enclosure 'E' to the same. 1,50,000/- which was received by the company on surrender of tenancy right of the New Delhi Office, the order of assessment is annexed with the writ application and marked as enclosure 'E' to the same. The company thereafter received a notice purported to have been issued under Section 154 of the Act, from which it appears that the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax alleged that the order under Section 143(3)/144-A of the Act dated 26th March, 1993 as referred to hereinabove required to be rectified as there was a mistake apparent from the record within the meaning of Section 154 of the Act. It appears from the notice issued under Section 154 of the Act by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax that the assessing Officer in passing the original assessment order charged the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as was received by the writ petitioner company on surrender of the tenancy right under the head capital gains. But he allowed exemption under Section 54 of the Act. On that basis in the said notice the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax held that as the company was not entitled to claim exemption under Section 54 of the Act it was mistake apparent from the record. He, therefore included the aforesaid sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- under the head capital gains and computed the total income at Rs. 2,957/-. On the basis of the above the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax determined the tax payable by the company at Rs. 69,397/- on which he levied interest under Section 234 B and Section 234 C of the Act and determined a sum of Rs. 10,8,678/- as tax payable by the company. The company feeling aggrieved by this order passed under Section 154 of the Act preferred a revisional application before the Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal-V hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner under Section 264 of the Act. The Commissioner on 5th of December, 1994 dismissed the said revisional application affirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 154 of the Act. Feeling aggrieved by the order of affirmance passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax this writ application has been moved. The Commissioner on 5th of December, 1994 dismissed the said revisional application affirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 154 of the Act. Feeling aggrieved by the order of affirmance passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax this writ application has been moved. The learned Counsel for the revenue however, concedes, before me that since this case involves only a question of law, the matter can be disposed of with the available records and no affidavit-in-opposition is necessary to be filed on behalf of the revenue. The learned Counsel for the revenue also prays before me that the writ application be disposed of without any direction of filing affidavits. In view of such stand being taken the writ petition is taken up for bearing. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. I have considered the materials on record. On consideration of the materials on record and after giving my anxious consideration to the submission made by the counsel for the parties. I am of the view that in the fact and circumstances of this case the authorities below have acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of their jurisdiction in passing the impugned orders. Reasons are as follows :–– In my view, under Section 154 of the Act it is now well settled that a mistake apparent from the record must be an obvious mistake and patent mistake not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may a specifically be two opinions. That is to say, the authority under Section 54 of the Act cannot have any jurisdiction of competence to rectify any order on points which are debatable. It appears from the record that all throughout the main grievance of the company was that the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- received by the writ petitioner on surrender of tenancy right at New Delhi was of a casual nature and it could not be treated as income as original said by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. It was admittedly the case of the company before the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax that the said sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- was a capital receipt. It was admittedly the case of the company before the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax that the said sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- was a capital receipt. Since the company did not acquire the said tenancy right on making any payment in view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B. C. Srivastava Setty as also the various decisions on different High Court, no capital gains can be charged. It also appears from the record and alternatively the company submitted that in view of Section 54 of the Act no capital gains tax can be levied on the said sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-. I have carefully perused the original assessment order. From the same it will be clear that the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax in making the assessment accepted all the aforesaid contentions of the company and therefore, it will be incorrect to say in the order under Section 154 of the Act and also in the order under Section 264 of the Act that no capital gain was charged in view of exemption under Section 54 of the Act. It is now well settled by the decisions of the Supreme Court that charging Section and the computation provisions together constitute an integrated code. When there is a case to which computation provisions cannot apply at all, it is evident that such a case was not intended to fall within the charging Section. In this connection Section 45 of the Act may he referred. For the purpose of imposing the charge the legislature has indicated different provisions in order to compute the profits and gains under the head. All the transactions as mentioned in Section 45 of the Act must fall under the computation provisions. A transaction to which those provisions cannot be applied must be regarded as never intended by Section 45 of the Act to be the subject matter of the charge. When there is a case to which computation provisions cannot apply at all it is evident that such a case was not intended to fall within the charging section. The Supreme Court, in (1) B. C. Srivastava Setty's case (128 ITR p. 294) held that the expression 'asset' in Section 45 of the Act contemplates that in the acquisition of 'asset' it is possible to invest cost. The Supreme Court, in (1) B. C. Srivastava Setty's case (128 ITR p. 294) held that the expression 'asset' in Section 45 of the Act contemplates that in the acquisition of 'asset' it is possible to invest cost. If there is any self-generated asset which does not cost it does not come within the purview of Section 45 of the Act. Applying the aforesaid principle laid down by the Supreme Court in B. C. Srivastava Setty's case various High Courts of India have held that there is no cost of acquisition of tenancy right. Consequently all the High Courts held that no capital gains can be charged on the money received on surrender of tenancy right as there was no cost of acquisition for tenancy. In view of the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court and also of the different High Court decisions it cannot be said to be a mistake at all in the original assessment order when the assessing Officer accepted the above submissions of the company. Even assuming that the alternative submission of the company which was based on Section 54 of the Act was incorrect, the said point does not make any difference to the ultimate decision of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax when he held in the assessment order that the capital gain does not attract in the case of the company. Therefore, in my view, the notice under Section 154 of the Act and the order passed thereunder by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and also the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 264 of the Act are on the face of it illegal and invalid and without jurisdiction. Even assuming that the alternative submission of the company on the applicability of Section 54 of the Act cannot be accepted even then I am of the view that the original assessment order by which the assessment Officer accepted the submission of the company as correct cannot be said to be a mistake apparent on the face of the record inasmuch as it is debatable points on which there may be two opinions. Even if there is any mistake in the lines under Section 54 of the Act in the original assessment order, the question as to whether the capital gains at all can be charged on the aforesaid sum of Rs 1,50,000/- on account of surrender of tenancy is itself a debatable point on which there may be two views. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court regarding the jurisdiction of the assessing Officer to issue a notice under Section 154 of the Act, I am of the view that there is a debatable point on which there may be two different views, the assessing Officer respondent No.2 had no competence or authority or jurisdiction either to issue the notice under Section 154 of the Act or to pass any order on the basis of such notice. There is another aspect of the matter for which interference of the writ Court is needed against the orders. Apart from the observations made hereinabove I find from the records that the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax passed the order under Section 154 of the Act without giving the writ petitioner a real opportunity of being heard. As a matter of fact he passed the order under Section 154 of the Act prior to the date fixed by him for showing cause and even before the petitioner had filed any reply to the show cause notice. Therefore, it is apparent from a reading of the order of the assessing Officer under Section 154 of the Act that he had made up his mind to pass the order under Section 154 of the Act and the show cause notice was nothing but a mere...............to make a show of complying with the requirement of natural justice. Let me now consider the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax passed under Section 264 of the Act which is also challenged in this writ application. It is on record that the Commissioner of Income Tax, by disposing of the proceeding under Section 264 of the Act, no personal hearing was given to its various representatives but directed the company to submit a written submission. It is on record that a written submission was filed by the company. I have carefully gone through the written submission filed by the company, before the Commissioner of income Tax. It is on record that a written submission was filed by the company. I have carefully gone through the written submission filed by the company, before the Commissioner of income Tax. However, from the order passed under Section 264 of the Act by the Commissioner it does not appear that he had dealt with or considered any of the points taken by the company in the petition of Section 264 of the Act as also those contained in the written submission. Therefore in my view, the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax passed under Section 264 of the Act was passed in gross violation of the principle of natural justice and it must be held that the Commissioner of Income Tax in considering the petition under Section 264 of the Act filed by the company acted with close and biased mind and; therefore, the impugned order passed by him was patently illegal and bad. For the reasons aforesaid I held that the invocation of power conferred on the assessing Officer under Section 154 of the Act was not appropriate in the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of the observations made hereinabove. The impugned orders are set aside and other proceedings thereunder and/or in pursuance thereof are hereby quashed. Accordingly, this writ application succeeds. There will be no order as to costs. All parties are to act on a xerox signed copy of this judgment on the usual undertaking.