ORDER : BHARGAV D. KARIA, J. 1. By this Tax Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), the Revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law arising out of the order dated 11.01.2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Ahmedabad, in ITA No.431/ Ahd/2019 for assessment year 2011-12: “A. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal was right in not considering categorical findings brought out by the assessing officer while passing the order u/s. 154 of the Act that the disclosure of cash of Rs.15,50,000/- was neither accepted nor was any explanation/clarification furnished by the concerned firm M/s. M.K. Ceramics during the course of assessment proceedings? B. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal was right in not appreciating the fact that the cash of Rs.15,00,000/- found from the possession of the assessee remains unexplained and is therefore, self-evident and requires no examination or argument to establish such fact? C. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal was right in not appreciating the Hon’ble Apex Court findings in the case of ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (2008) 173 Taxmann 322 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court noted that an error apparent on the face of the record cannot be defined exhaustively, there being an element of indefiniteness inherent in its very nature and must be left to the determined judicially on the facts of each case?” 2. Facts of the case giving rise to the aforesaid questions can be summarized as under: (I) The assessee is an individual and was subjected to search and seizure under Section 132 of the Act dated 26.10.2010. During the course of such cash of Rs.16,48,850/- was recovered from the premises of the assessee. (II) The Assessing Officer during the course of the regular assessment under Section 143(3), issued notice under Section 142 (1) of the Act with regard to the cash seized during the course of the search. The assessee vide letter dated 22.02.2013 replied that out of seized cash a sum of Rs.98,850/- belonged to the family members and balance amount of Rs.15,50,000/- belonged to partnership firm M/s. M.K.Ceramics. The assessee vide letter dated 22.02.2013 replied that out of seized cash a sum of Rs.98,850/- belonged to the family members and balance amount of Rs.15,50,000/- belonged to partnership firm M/s. M.K.Ceramics. According to the assessee the cash found from his possession was considered in the assessment proceedings initiated in case of M/s. M.K.Ceramics under Section 153C of the Act and therefore the amount of cash of Rs.15,50,000/- cannot be added to the total income of the assessee. 3. The Assessing Officer accepting the explanation of the assessee, passed the assessment order on 02.02.2013 under SEction 143(3) of the Act and did not make any addition on account of the cash found from the premises of the assessee. 4. However, the Assessing Officer subsequently found that the cash found from the premises of the assessee of Rs.15,50,000/- was not accepted by the partnership firm M/s. M.K.Ceramics in the assessment framed for the assessment year 2005-06 to 2011-12. The Assessing Officer was therefore of the view that there was mistake apparent on record in the order passed under Section 143(3) and issued notice under Section 154 of the Act for rectification of such mistake in the assessment order. 5. The Assessing Officer thereafter passed an order under Section 154 by making an addition under Section 69A of the Act for the amount of Rs.15,50,000/-. The assessee being aggrieved, preferred appeal before the CIT(A) who by the order dated 28.12.2018 allowed the appeal of the assessee holding that as the Assessing Officer while passing the order under Section 143(3) of the Act, the contention of the assessee accepted and no addition was made and therefore there was no mistake apparent on record which can be rectified under Section 154 of the Act. 6. The CIT(A) also referred to the assessment order passed in the matter of M/s. M.K.Ceramics and came to the conclusion that in the said assessment order, income offered by the M/s. M.K.Ceramics to the tune of Rs.75.90 lakhs was accepted after considering the unaccounted turnover disclosed in the return of income filed under Section 153C of the Act. 7. The Revenue being aggrieved by the order passed by the CIT(A) approached the Tribunal by preferring the Appeal. 8. 7. The Revenue being aggrieved by the order passed by the CIT(A) approached the Tribunal by preferring the Appeal. 8. The Tribunal after considering the decision of this Court in case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Aura Securities (P.) Ltd. reported in [2018] 96 taxmann.com 417 (Gujarat), held that the provision of Section 154 of the Act can be invoked when there is a mistake which is apparent from record and about the same two views are not possible. The Tribunal thereafter recorded the finding of fact that in case if the Assessing Officer in the rectification proceedings under Section 154 of the Act has made independent addition which was not consciously made while framing the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act, then such mistake cannot be said to be the mistake apparent on the record. It was also considered by the Tribunal that the long drawn proceedings was required to be adopted to reach to the conclusion that the cash found from the premises of the assessee represented the unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The Tribunal also referred to the statement of the assessee furnished during the course of the search recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act wherein the assessee has categorically stated about the documents found in the search proceedings that the same represent undisclosed transaction of the firm M/s. M.K.Ceramics and based on that statement undisclosed income of the firm was determined. The Tribunal therefore came to the conclusion that the Assessing Officer has committed an error by passing the order for rectification of the assessment order under the provisions of Section 154 of the Act and confirmed the order passed by the CIT(A) deleting such addition. 10. We have perused the orders passed by the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal who have arrived at concurrent findings of fact to the effect that there is no mistake apparent on record and when there are two views possible on the same facts, the Assessing Officer could not have invoked the provisions under Section 154 of the Act. 11. We have perused the orders passed by the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal who have arrived at concurrent findings of fact to the effect that there is no mistake apparent on record and when there are two views possible on the same facts, the Assessing Officer could not have invoked the provisions under Section 154 of the Act. 11. Reliance placed by the learned advocate for the appellant on the decision of Madras High Court in case of Cuddalore District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax reported in [2021] 130 taxmann.com 239 (Madras) is distinguishable on the facts as in the said case the assessee claimed the deduction in respect of the provision of bad and doubtful debts under Section 36(1) (viia) in the return of income which was accepted by the Assessing Officer and thereafter rectification proceedings were initiated under Section 154 of the Act stating that a deduction claimed under Section 36(1)(viia) was to be restricted to the provision of doubtful debt made by the assessee in financials. In such circumstances the Madras High Court held that there was a mistake apparent on record in calculation and applying the provisions of Section 36(1)(viia) which can be considered as mistake apparent on record for initiating the rectification proceedings under Section 154 of the Act. 12. In view of the facts emerging from the record when the Assessing Officer has accepted the contention of assessee while framing the regular assessment, there is no mistake apparent on record as rightly held by both CIT(A) and the Tribunal and therefore we are of the opinion that no question of law much less any substantial question of law arises from the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 13. The appeal therefore is devoid of any merits and the same is hereby dismissed.