Judgment :- P.P.S. JANARTHANA RAJA, J. 1. The Revenue has filed the present appeals against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years from 1989-90 to 1993-94, raising the following questions of law:- "1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to deductions u/s 80HHA and u/s 80I and the Assessing Officer was not justified in withdrawing the deductions u/s 154? 2.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the Assessing Officer was not correct in initiating the proceedings for rectification u/s 154 on the ground that there were no mistakes apparent from records ?" 2. The brief facts arising out of the appeals are as under:- The assessee is a private limited company engaged in the manufacture and sale ofcattle feeds and poultry feeds and also procures eggs and sells the same. The assessment years are 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 and the corresponding accounting year ending are 31.3.1989, 31.3.1990, 31.3.1991, 31.3.1992 and 31.3.1993. During these assessment years, the assessee claimed the relief under Section 80HHA and 80I and the Assessing Officer also originally granted the relief. Subsequently, to the great surprise of the assessee, the Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the ground that there is a mistake apparent from the record with regard to the relief granted earlier and withdrew the relief under Section 154 of the Act. Aggrieved by that, the assessee filed appeals to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who allowed the appeals holding that the issue is a debatable one and therefore, there is no mistake apparent from the record. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue preferred appeals before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal also confirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. As against the said order, the present appeals have been filed before this Court raising the above questions of law. 3. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue preferred appeals before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal also confirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. As against the said order, the present appeals have been filed before this Court raising the above questions of law. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Revenue vehemently contended that the orders passed by the authorities below are without any basis and not justifiable on the ground that the assessee is not entitled for the relief under Section 80 HHA and 80 I and therefore, the orders of the authorities below are not in accordance with law and the same should be set aside. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee has submitted that both the authorities have considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and came to the correct conclusion that there is no mistake apparent from the record and therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is based on valid material evidence and hence, the same has to be confirmed. 5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. In the present case, the respondent/assessee is engaged in manufacturing as well as trading activity. In the manufacturing division, the assessee manufactures and sells cattle feeds and poultry feeds. In the trading division, it procures eggs and sells the same. For the above assessment years, the assessee claimed deduction under Section 80-HHA as well as 80-I of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer has sought to revise the assessment on the ground that the assessee cannot be regarded as small scale industry and therefore, the respondent/assessee cannot claim the benefit under Section 80HHA and 80-I of the Income Tax Act, 1961. On the last day of the previous year, the total value of the plant and machinery exceeds Rs.35,00,000/-(Rupees Thirty five lakhs only). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in paragraph 5 of his order, considered the scope of the provisions under Section 80HHA of the Income Tax Act and held that the aggregate value of the plant and machinery do not exceed the limit as contemplated under the provisions. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) was of the view that only total value of the plant and machinery of industrial undertaking, which manufactures or produces article should alone be considered. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) was of the view that only total value of the plant and machinery of industrial undertaking, which manufactures or produces article should alone be considered. Therefore, for each assessment year, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) considered the break up details of the each plant and machinery and excluded certain items such as air-conditioners for office, 63 numbers of ceiling fans, value of electrical installations in branches of the company etc from the value of trading activities. After exclusion, the aggregate value of the plant and machinery relating to industrial undertaking comes less than Rs.35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty five lakhs only). Therefore, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) taken the view that the Assessing Officer correctly allowed the relief in the original assessment. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further held that the Assessing Officer was wrong in rectifying the assessment order under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of the relief granted earlier under Section 80HHA and 80-I of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reason assigned by the Assessing Officer for withdrawing the relief was that the second unit was also functioning in the same premises. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) considered the issue in detail in paragraph 6 and pointed out that it is not necessary that the new industrial undertaking should be set up in a new premises. Further, the CIT (Appeals) pointed out that after excluding the value of certain items not connected with the industrial undertaking, the aggregate value comes within the definition of "small scale industrial undertaking". Therefore, the Assessing Officer correctly allowed the relief in the original assessment after proper scrutiny of the accounts. On appeal, the Tribunal also taken the same view and confirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and came to a conclusion that there is no justification for withdrawing the relief granted earlier. Thus, it is the concurrent finding given by both the authorities that the Assessing Officer was not justified in rectifying the order under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further it was held that there is no patent or glaring mistake on the face of the record regarding the original assessment that warrants rectification under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further it was held that there is no patent or glaring mistake on the face of the record regarding the original assessment that warrants rectification under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The finding given by both the authorities are in conformity with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of T.S.Balaram, Income Tax Officer Vs. Volkart Brothers and Others reported in (1971) 82 ITR 50, wherein, it has been held that a decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal correctly followed the above principle. 6. We do not find any illegality in the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which warrants interference by this Court. The finding is based on material evidence. It is a question of fact. The order of the Tribunal is not a perverse order. Therefore, we answer the questions of law in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The Tax Case Appeals are devoid of merits and hence the same are dismissed. No costs.