JUDGMENT Manjula Chellur, J.—Appeal came to be admitted on the following substantial question of law:- Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in not following the finding given by it in the earlier proceedings in ITA No. 389/BANG/07 for the very same assessment year in the case of the very same assessee on the very same issue and depart from its own findings on merits and law?We are concerned with the assessment year 2002-03, The controversy is with regard to the claim of Rs. 28,10,000/- as payment of sales tax pertaining to the assessment year of 2001-02. After completion of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer by virtue of Order dated 20/12/2005 under Section 154 of the Act, after rectifying the assessment order sent the intimation to the assessee. This was not initially challenged by the respondent-assessee, but, however, he filed an application under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, seeking modification of the order of the Assessing Officer under Section 154 of the Act. This came to be rejected and the appeal filed before the CIT (Appeals) by the assessee also came to be rejected and the same came to be confirmed by the Tribunal as per the order at Annexure-D, dated 8/6/2007. It is also pertinent to mention that in these proceedings, the appellate authorities held that the assessee ought to have challenged the orders of the Assessing Authority (suo moto proceedings) under Section 154 instead of filing an application under Section 154 seeking modification of the order of the Assessing Officer. Realising the mistake, the assessee seems to have filed an appeal challenging orders of the Assessing Officer dated 20/12/2005. 2. The first Appellate Authority though condoned the delay of more than 3 years in filing the appeal, however, rejected the claim of the assessee. Hence, the assessee went in an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held the controversy in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the revenue is before us challenging the orders of the Tribunal. 3. 2. The first Appellate Authority though condoned the delay of more than 3 years in filing the appeal, however, rejected the claim of the assessee. Hence, the assessee went in an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held the controversy in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the revenue is before us challenging the orders of the Tribunal. 3. According to the learned counsel for the revenue the Tribunal having rejected the applications filed under Section 154 at the instance of the assessee and having rejected the claim made by the assessee, both by CIT (Appeals) and also the Tribunal, there was no justification for the Tribunal to give the benefit to the respondent-assessee by virtue of an order under Annexure-D. 4. The main contention of the respondent assessee in the appeal against the orders of the Assessing Officer under Section 154 was, the very purpose of invoking Section 154 would be lost if further details are called for from the respondent-assessee, as it does not amount to rectification of an error apparent on the face of record. According to him, if at all the Assessing Officer intended to extend the benefit of allowance of Rs. 28,10,000/- spent towards Sales Tax for the purpose of computation of tax as the respondent-assessee did not furnish the details for such expenditure, he could have only re-opened the assessment proceedings or he could have taken up the file for scrutiny but it was not open to him to initiate the proceedings under Section 154, as there is no jurisdiction to initiate such proceedings when there was nothing which could be termed as an error apparent on the face of record. 5. According to the learned counsel for the revenue, it is apparent on the face of record because such allowance was given to the assessee though there were no supporting documents to substantiate the claim of allowance. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent assessee placed reliance in the case of T.S. Balaram, Income Tax Officer, Company Circle IV, Bombay Vs. Volkart Brothers, Bombay, AIR 1971 SC 2204 . 6. Learned counsel for the respondent assessee placed reliance in the case of T.S. Balaram, Income Tax Officer, Company Circle IV, Bombay Vs. Volkart Brothers, Bombay, AIR 1971 SC 2204 . Their Lordship in this case while referring to Section 154 of Income Tax Act, regarding a mistake apparent on the record proceeded to hold that the mistake apparent on the record must be 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. They further held that a decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record. We are concerned with the first part of law laid down by the Apex Court i.e. whether there was an obvious and patent mistake on the face of record, which compelled the Assessing Officer to initiate the proceedings under Section 154 of the Act. The very fact that the Assessing Officer called upon the respondent assessee to furnish the details of Rs. 28,10,000/- towards the payments made by them to the Sales Tax Department to substantiate their claim would indicate they expected reply and further enquiry into the matter to know whether the respondent-assessee was entitled for such allowance or not. This is nothing but the authorities concerned were accepting the long drawn litigation to arrive at the conclusion after obtaining the details from the respondent-assessee, which is very much against the Provision of Section 154 as laid down the above case. The Tribunal has opined the same in the appeal filed by the respondent-assessee and we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was justified in arriving at such conclusion. 7. Accordingly, substantial question of law is held against the revenue and in favour of the respondent-assessee.