JUDGMENT K.L. Manjunath, J.— This appeal is by the assessee challenging the concurrent findings of the order passed by the Assessing Officer dated December 19, 1995, which has been affirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and further confirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in I.T. A. No. 395/Bang/1998 dated November 21, 2003. 2. In respect of the assessment year 1989-90, the Assessing Officer passed an order. Thereafter, being aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in Appeal No. ITA-53/DCSR.6/CIT(A)I/95-96 which came to be allowed in part and direction was issued to revise the order of assessment. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-1, Bangalore, by his order dated September 13, 1991, passed an order of revised assessment wherein a sum of Rs. 25,41,834 was added with interest under Section 244A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the IT Act"). 3. Pursuant to the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, in I.T.A. No 1310/Bang/86 dated June 29, 1995, the earlier order of assessment was required to be revised. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore, by his order dated December 19, 1995, by invoking the provisions of Section 154 of the Income Tax Act passed the order. While passing the revised order, the interest awarded under the earlier order of assessment dated September 13, 1991, amounting to Rs. 25,41,834 was disallowed on the ground that interest awardable under Section 244A(3) of the Income Tax Act was not applicable since the refund payable to the assessee is less than 10 per cent, of tax due. This order was questioned by the assessee by filing an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which appeal came to be dismissed on the ground that the Assessing Officer was justified in passing the order of rectification under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act in disallowing the interest awarded to the assessee by the earlier assessment order amounting to Rs. 25,41,834. Against the concurrent findings of the orders, a second appeal was filed before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which appeal came to be allowed in part granting relief to the assessee under Section 244A(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act was confirmed. 25,41,834. Against the concurrent findings of the orders, a second appeal was filed before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which appeal came to be allowed in part granting relief to the assessee under Section 244A(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act was confirmed. Therefore, the present appeal is filed raising the following substantial question of law: (i) On facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the authorities below were justified in holding that in view of the proviso to Section 244A(1A), the assessee is not entitled for the benefit granted to it earlier invoking Sub-section (3) of Section 244A of the Income Tax Act? (ii) Whether the Assessing Officer was justified in passing an order of rectification on December 17, 1995, by invoking Section 154 of the Income Tax Act even though there was no error apparent on the face of the record? 4. We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 5. At the time of arguments learned Counsel for the parties fairly submit that if question No. 2 is answered in favour of the assessee then there is no necessity for this Court to consider question No. 1 framed in the appeal memo. 6. In the circumstances, we have considered question No. 2 framed by the assessee in this appeal. 7. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the directions issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax by his order dated September 13, 1991, invoking Sub-section (3) of Section 244A of the Income Tax Act had awarded interest amounting to Rs. 24,41,834. It is also not in dispute that pursuant to the directions issued in I.T.A. No. 1310/86 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, an order of rectification has been passed invoking Section 154 of the Income Tax Act on December 19, 1995. While giving effect to the Tribunal's order, whether the DCIT can disallow the interest awarded under Section 244A(3) of the Income Tax Act by holding that there was a mistake apparent on the face of the record. 8. Annexure B is the order of the Assessing Officer dated December 19, 1995. While giving effect to the Tribunal's order, whether the DCIT can disallow the interest awarded under Section 244A(3) of the Income Tax Act by holding that there was a mistake apparent on the face of the record. 8. Annexure B is the order of the Assessing Officer dated December 19, 1995. A mere perusal of the order dated December 19,1995, we are of the opinion that the Assessing Officer has not passed the order assigning any reason to hold that there was a mistake apparent on the face of the record to invoke Section 154 of the Income Tax Act. But it is seen from the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that he has discussed this point in detail to show that prior to the order passed by the Assessing Officer, a show-cause notice was issued to the assessee stating that the Assessing Officer has granted the relief earlier and that the same is a mistake apparent on the face of record for which the assessee has filed a detailed objections contending that there is no mistake apparent on the face of the record. When the assessee has seriously contested contending that Section 154 of the Income Tax Act has no application in regard to the withdrawal of interest awarded under Section 244A(3) of the Income Tax Act, the Assessing Officer while passing the order under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act was required to give his reasoning to reject the contention of the assessee. But such a reasoning is not available in the order passed by the Assessing Officer. Though the Commissioner has made an attempt to justify the order passed by the Assessing Officer, we are of the opinion that it was for the Assessing Officer to give the reasoning to reject the contention of the assessee. Similarly, the Tribunal has also not considered the contentions urged by the assessee in regard to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to invoke Section 154 of the Income Tax Act in regard to disallowing the interest awarded to the assessee under Section 244A(3) of the Income Tax Act. Similarly, the Tribunal has also not considered the contentions urged by the assessee in regard to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to invoke Section 154 of the Income Tax Act in regard to disallowing the interest awarded to the assessee under Section 244A(3) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the order passed by all the authorities are to be set aside and matter has to be remanded to the Assessing Officer to examine the contentions urged by the assessee and give his findings how Section 154 of the Income Tax Act would be attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case after giving reasons only if he is of the opinion that Section 154 of the Income Tax Act would be attracted on the ground that there is a mistake apparent on the face of the order dated September 13, 1991, he can invoke Section 154 of the Income Tax Act. 9. In the result, without answering question No. 1 framed in this appeal and answering question No. 2 in favour of the assessee on facts we are allowing this appeal in part and remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer to pass an order on the merits in accordance with law in the light of the direction issued by this Court in the earlier paragraphs.