JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B' (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') dated 19.05.2006 in ITA No. 335 & 336/Ahd./2006 for the Assessment Year 1997-98 & 1998-99 respectively, the revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeals for consideration of the following substantial question of law: "(A) Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT is justified in holding that the mistake in computation of deduction u/s.80HHC of the Act by applying wrong law was not a mistake apparent from record within the meaning of Sec. 154 of the Act? (B) Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT is justified in condoning the delay of three years and twenty seven days in filing appeal?" 2. The assessee claimed deduction u/s. 80HHC of the Act in the return of income. During the assessment proceedings the assessee revised its claim based on unit wise profit on export. The Assessing Officer revised claim on the ground that as per sub-section 3(a) of Section 80HHC, the total turnover of the business and profit of the business as a whole and not the unit wise are to be considered for calculation of deduction u/s. 80HHC of the Act. On appeal by the assessee, the CIT (Appeals) partly allowed the same but allowed the claim of deduction u/s. 80HHC unit-wise. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer wrote to new CIT(A) that as per the old matter, deduction was allowed. On 12.09.2002, CIT(A) modified the claim under section 154 of the Act which was originally allowed. 3. On appeal before the Tribunal by the assessee, by impugned judgment and order, Tribunal reversed the findings of CIT(A). Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, the revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeals for consideration of the aforesaid substantial question of law. 4. Mr. M.R. Bhatt, learned advocate appearing for the revenue submitted that the CIT(A) while finalizing the order u/s. 154 of the Act has discussed the submissions made by the assessee opposing the actions of the CIT(A) and rebutted the same quoting various decisions. 4. Mr. M.R. Bhatt, learned advocate appearing for the revenue submitted that the CIT(A) while finalizing the order u/s. 154 of the Act has discussed the submissions made by the assessee opposing the actions of the CIT(A) and rebutted the same quoting various decisions. He submitted that the total turnover is to be considered as a whole and not unit wise and also the deduction is allowable to the assessee and not to the units of the business as in the case of Section 80HH and 80I of the Act. He submitted that the Tribunal admitted the appeal which was filed late by three years and twenty seven days. He submitted that the Tribunal erred in condoning the delay because the reason given by the assessee for filing the appeal late is that the papers were misplaced at the office of the concerned advocate which is not plausible enough to grant condonation. 5. Ms. Bhoomi Thakore, learned advocate appearing for Ms. Swati Soparkar, learned advocate for the assessee submitted that the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the facts of the case and come to the conclusion that the revenue having not brought any material evidence to justify assessment of income from export business based on total turnover u/s.80HHC(3)(b) rather than export business being exclusively for export of pharmaceutical machinery income derived therefrom was rightly claimed as deduction u/s. 80HHC(3)(a) of the Act. 6. Having heard learned advocates for both the sides and having gone through the records of the case, we are of the view that the Tribunal is justified in allowing the claim of the assessee. In this regard it shall be relevant to reproduce Section 154 of the Income Tax Act and the same reads as under: 154. 6. Having heard learned advocates for both the sides and having gone through the records of the case, we are of the view that the Tribunal is justified in allowing the claim of the assessee. In this regard it shall be relevant to reproduce Section 154 of the Income Tax Act and the same reads as under: 154. Rectification of mistake (1) With a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record an income-tax authority referred to, in section 116 may,- (a) amend any order passed by it under the provisions of this Act; (b) amend any intimation sent by it under sub-section (1) of section 143, or enhance or reduce the amount of refund granted by it under that sub-section.] (1A) Where any matter has been considered and decided in any proceeding by way of appeal or revision relating to an order referred to in sub-section (1), the authority passing such order may, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the, time being in force, amend the order under that sub-section in relation to any matter other than the matter which has been so considered and decided.] (2) Subject to the other provisions of this section, the authority concerned-- (a) may make an amendment under sub-section (1) of its own motion, and (b) shall make such amendment for rectifying any-such mistake which has been brought to its notice by the assessee, and where the authority concerned is the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)] (3) An amendment, which has the effect of enhancing an assessment or reducing a refund or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee, shall not be made under this section unless the authority concerned has given notice to the assessee of its intention so to do and has allowed the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (4) Where an amendment is made under this section, an order shall be passed in writing by the income-tax authority concerned. (5) Subject to the provisions of section 241, where any such amendment has the effect of reducing the assessment, the Assessing] Officer shall make any refund which may be due to such assessee. (4) Where an amendment is made under this section, an order shall be passed in writing by the income-tax authority concerned. (5) Subject to the provisions of section 241, where any such amendment has the effect of reducing the assessment, the Assessing] Officer shall make any refund which may be due to such assessee. (6) Where any such amendment has the effect of enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made, the Assessing] Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice of demand in the prescribed form specifying the sum payable, and such notice of demand shall be deemed to be issued under section 156 and the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly. (7) Save as otherwise provided in section 155 or sub-section (4) of section 186, no amendment under this section shall be made after the expiry of four years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be amended was passed.] 6.1 The Tribunal in the impugned order has observed as under: "... A plain reading of rectification order reveals that CIT(A) has referred to various observations of mistakes, like variance of language and wrong consideration of relevant facts, wrong application of law and reliance on some High Court judgments for holding his change of view which itself indicates debatable proposition. In view thereof, it is clear that impugned rectification orders amount to review of orders by successor CIT(A), which is not permissible under Section 154. In our considered opinion impugned orders amount to reviewing of own orders by appellate authority, they are not sustainable, hence these orders under Section 154 are quashed." 6.2 We are in complete agreement with the reasonings arrived at by the Tribunal. The CIT(A) rejected the assessee's objections and by way of rectification under Section 154 withdrew relief by holding that deduction under Section 80HHC was not to be worked unit wise but on the basis of total profits and turnover. The successor CIT(A) has observed that there was an error apparent on record. It may be possible that an Income Tax Authority may commit a mistake while passing the order of assessment, appeal, revision etc. The successor CIT(A) has observed that there was an error apparent on record. It may be possible that an Income Tax Authority may commit a mistake while passing the order of assessment, appeal, revision etc. From the above provisions of Section 154 what is clear is that a mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. In the present case, the successor CIT(A) fell in error in reviewing its original order which cannot be said to be permissible under the garb of Section 154. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record. The Tribunal has observed that the plain reading of rectification order reveals that CIT(A) has referred to various observations of mistakes, like variance of language and wrong consideration of relevant facts, wrong application of law and reliance on some High Court judgments for holding his change of view which itself indicates debatable proposition. The CIT(A) clearly fell into an error. In fact, it reviewed its own order which it had no jurisdiction to do. The correctness of the conclusions arrived at in the order cannot be the subject matter of an application for rectification where two views are possible. 7. So far as issue regarding condonation of delay is concerned, it is required to be noted that the assessee had initially filed two appeals being 3351 and 3352 of 2002 which was within the period of limitation. However, the assessee under the misconception that the appeal was not filed, filed the present appeals again. We are therefore of the view that the said question is also required to be answered in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and the questions raised in the present appeals are required to be answered in favour of the assessee. 8. Accordingly, the questions raised in the present appeals are answered in favour of assessee and against the revenue. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal confirmed. Appeals are allowed accordingly.