JUDGMENT : (P. Sam Koshy, J.) Since the issue involved in these three appeals and the question of law raised also being the same, they are decided by this common judgment. 2. Heard Mr. A.V.A. Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel, representing Mr. A.V. Krishna Koundinya, learned counsel for the appellants/ assessee, and Ms. K. Mamata, learned Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department, representing Mr. B. Narasimha Sarma, learned counsel for respondent. 3. I.T.T.A.No.208 of 2008 is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) assailing the order dated 19.12.2007 in ITA.No.1107/Hyd/2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, the ‘ITAT’) for the assessment year 2000- 01. I.T.TA.No.151 of 2010 and I.T.T.A.No.152 of 2010 are also filed under Section 260A of the Act assailing the orders dated 08.08.2008 in ITA.No726/Hyd/2006 & ITA.No.59/Hyd/2008 passed by the ITAT for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 respectively. 4. For convenience, the facts in I.T.T.A.No.208 of 2008 are discussed herein. 5. The substantial question of law raised by the appellant is “whether the order of the Assessing Officer which has been confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Hyderabad, as also by that of ITAT to the effect of refusing to deduct financial charges to the tune of Rs.15,01,600/- from the estimated income was proper, legal and justified?” 6. The brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer completed the assessment in respect of the appellant for the assessment year 2000-01 determining the total income including income from contracts. The income from contracts was estimated at 12% after invoking Section 145 of the Act subject to allowing depreciation and other statutory allowances as agreed to by the authorized representative at the time of hearing before the Assessing Officer itself. During the course of proceedings, the Assessing Officer allowed the depreciation claim of the appellant while computing the income. After the Assessing Officer completed the assessment proceedings and passed the assessment order, the appellant filed an application under Section 154 of the Act seeking for rectification of the assessment order so for as deduction of financial charges to the tune of Rs.15,01,600/- from the estimated income. The said application filed under Section 154 of the Act was rejected by the Assessing Officer. The matter was thereafter taken to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who in turn, confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. The said application filed under Section 154 of the Act was rejected by the Assessing Officer. The matter was thereafter taken to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who in turn, confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, the appellant challenged the same before the ITAT. The ITAT also affirmed the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as also by the Assessing Officer, leading to filing of the present appeals. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the appellant is otherwise entitled for deductions those which are reflected under Section 30 to 38 of the Act. According to the learned counsel, the ITAT has erred in holding that the appellant is not entitled for the relief on the reliance of the past assessments having being done on the very same issue against the appellant, and the appellant has in fact not questioned the stand of the Department in respect of those assessments made in the past. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the provisions of Section 154 of the Act and contended that once when an application under Section 154 of the Act for rectification is filed, the authority concerned ought to have taken up a more pragmatic and practical approach while granting deductions and there is no principle of res judicata applicable in tax laws and, therefore, each year’s assessment has to be taken up as a separate cause of action which the authority concerned has not properly considered, leading to the rectification application being filed under Section 154 of the Act. 9. It was also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the ITAT erred inasmuch as observing that no jurisdiction stood vested upon the ITAT under Section 154 of the Act to rectify the assessment order on the grounds those were raised therein. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of the aforesaid contentions placed reliance on the decisions of Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Y. Ramachandra Reddy , [[2015] 372 ITR 77 (T & AP)] and Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Inter Continental Constructions , [[2015] 372 ITR 372 (T & AP)] 11. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of the aforesaid contentions placed reliance on the decisions of Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Y. Ramachandra Reddy , [[2015] 372 ITR 77 (T & AP)] and Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Inter Continental Constructions , [[2015] 372 ITR 372 (T & AP)] 11. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent opposing the appeal contended that the instant appeal is only one where the challenge is to the order passed under Section 154 of the Act and the scope of interference to a proceeding under Section 154 is too minimal. According to the learned Standing Counsel, the appellant herein has not questioned the original order of the Assessing Officer passed under Section 143(3) of the Act, and that in the absence of this, the question of consideration by this Court gets confined to the extent of “whether there was any error committed by the authority concerned while deciding the application filed by the appellant under Section 154 of the Act?” 12. Learned Standing Counsel drew the attention of this Court to the contents of the order passed by the Assessing Officer on the application under Section 154 and brought it to the notice of the Court that the Assessing Officer has threadbare considered the contentions of the appellant and found that the finding arrived at by the Assessing Officer while passing the order under Section 143(3) on 31.03.2003 was perfectly justified and ample reasons have been provided for reaching to the said conclusion. 13. Learned Standing Counsel further took the Court to the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), as also that by the ITAT, where the challenge was to the order passed on the application under Section 154 and contended that once when there is a concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the appellate authority as also by the appellate tribunal, there is hardly any scope of interference left to an order passed on the application for rectification under Section 154 of the Act. 14. 14. Lastly, the learned Standing Counsel contended that even the plain reading of the order passed by the authority concerned under Section 154 of the Act would go to reveal that the authority concerned have heavily taken into consideration, the fact that the assessment so arrived at by the Assessing Officer and the findings so given by the appellate authority and by the appellate tribunal in so far as not allowing deduction of financial charges was basing on the previous years’ assessment wherein also such deductions of financial charges were not allowed and the assessee had neither objected, nor challenged the same. Therefore, the learned Standing Counsel prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 15. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of records, the point for consideration is,whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as also the ITAT were justified in rejecting the two appeals filed by the appellant? 16. Admittedly, the original order of assessment was one which was passed on 31.03.2003. The appellant filed a rectification application under Section 154 before the Assessing Officer so far as not allowing of the deduction of financial charges and also not deducting depreciation and interest. The Assessing Officer having considered the contentions and submissions put forth by the appellant, reached to the conclusion that the assessment order has been passed strictly following the past history and that there was no deviation brought by him from the yester years so far as the assessment made in respect of the appellant. 17. It would be relevant at this juncture to refer to thefindings arrived at by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which for ready reference is reproduced hereunder: “6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the Counsel and have also gone through the relevant papers placed on record. The appellant firm derives income from execution of contracts and transport business. As per the P & L account, the gross contract receipts have been shown at Rs.25,26,55,229 out of which sub-contracts worth Rs. 5,04,59,034 given to othershave been deducted. The appellant also derives income from transport business. The freight charges from transport business have been shown at Rs.2,99,72,241 and after claiming various expenses, gross profit from transport business has been shown at Rs. 56,91,176 which has been transferred to the head office account. 5,04,59,034 given to othershave been deducted. The appellant also derives income from transport business. The freight charges from transport business have been shown at Rs.2,99,72,241 and after claiming various expenses, gross profit from transport business has been shown at Rs. 56,91,176 which has been transferred to the head office account. During the course of assessment proceedings, the appellant agreed for the estimation of income from contract business on the ground that some of the expenses are not verifiable and are not fully supported by vouchers. While estimating the income from contract business, the assessing officer has deducted from the gross contract receipts, recoveries made by Govt. of Rs.49,90,455 and sub-contract amount of Rs.6,04,59,034. The Assessing Officer has arrived at net contract receipts amounting to Rs.18,72,05,740 as against gross receipts of Rs. 19,21,96,195 shown in the Profit & Loss account. While estimating the income at 12% on net contract receipts, the Assessing Officer has clearly mentioned that this will be subjectto grant of depreciation and other statutory allowances to which the appellant agreed. In the earlier two years, the income from contract business was estimated by applying rate of 12.5% and 12% before allowing depreciation only. This position was accepted by the appellant as neither rectification petition nor appeal was filed for asst. year 1998-99 and 1999-2000. The decision of Rajasthan High Court relied upon by the appellant cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. In the case before Rajasthan High Court, the Assessing Officer applied rate subject to depreciation and interest to third parties for asst. years 1989-90 to 93-94. For asst. year 1994-95, 95-96 and 96-97, the Assessing Officer deviated from the earlier position and allowed depreciation only. On the basis of these facts, the Rajasthan High Court held that the Tribunal, while accepting the basic net profit rate on the basis of past history of the case found no reason for deviating on estimating the income of the assessee. The High Court held as under: “Held, dismissing the appeal, that the Tribunal linked the process of estimating income with the past practice followed in the assessee’s case by the Revenue itself consistently for five years prior to the relevant years in question. The High Court held as under: “Held, dismissing the appeal, that the Tribunal linked the process of estimating income with the past practice followed in the assessee’s case by the Revenue itself consistently for five years prior to the relevant years in question. In this case the very foundation of fixing the net profit rate had been the average net profit rate as had been applied by the Revenue in the past consistently since the assessment year 1989-90 and which had been followed in determining the taxable income of the assessee year after year. In the net profit so fixed the element of depreciation on the fixed asset and interest on borrowings had not been taken into consideration in determining the net profit rate. Consequently, the trading result obtained by applying such net profit rate needed further appropriation towards allowable depreciation and interest on borrowings. The Tribunal was right in modifying the order passed by the assessing authority by making the net profit rate subject to adjustment towards depreciation and interest on borrowings. This conclusion was a pure finding of fact and would not give rise to a question of law much less a substantial question of law”. 7. In the instant case, the Assessing Officer has not deviated from the past history. For asst. years 1998-99 and 99-00, the income was estimated before allowing depreciation which was accepted by the appellant firm.In this year also, the Assessing Officer has done the same thing. Therefore, the decision of the Rajasthan High Court cannot be applied to the facts of the appellant’s case. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Assessing Officer was fully justified in rejecting the rectification petition filed by the appellant.” 18. When this finding was challenged by the appellant before the ITAT, the ITAT also affirmed the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and reached to the conclusion that while exercising the power under Section 154, the Assessing Authority has to scrutinize the order of assessment to the extent of finding whether there is a mistake apparent from the record. The ITAT also reached to the conclusion that the mistake being brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer must be apparent from the record and should be obvious and a patent mistake and not one which could be detected after a long-drawn process of reasoning. The ITAT also reached to the conclusion that the mistake being brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer must be apparent from the record and should be obvious and a patent mistake and not one which could be detected after a long-drawn process of reasoning. It was also the finding of the ITAT that the powers under Section 154 are not meant to reach to another opinion which was also plausible when the finding arrived at was one of the opinions which could be arrived at. According to the ITAT, a debatable point of law cannot be said to be a mistake apparent on the face of record so as to invoke Section 154 to rectify the order of assessment, more particularly if the decision arrived at by the Assessing Officer is one which was based upon the past assessment made in respect of the very same assessee. 19. Section 154 of the Act, for ready reference, is reproduced hereunder: “ Rectification of mistake. 154. [(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 or deemed intimation under sub- section (1) of section 143;]] [(c) amend any intimation under sub-section (1) of section 200A;] [(d)amend any intimation under sub-section (1) of section 206CB.] [(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, [or by the deductor] [or by the collector], and where the authority concerned is [ the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or ] the [Commissioner (Appeals), by the [Assessing] Officer also.” 20. It would also be relevant at this juncture to take note of the observations made by the ITAT based upon judicial precedents that which is reflected in paragraph Nos.6 and 7 of the ITAT’s order, which reads thus: “6.……………The power of rectification under sec. 154 of the Act can be exercised only when the mistake which is sought to be rectified is an obvious and patent mistake which is apparent from record and not a mistake which requires to be established by argument and long-drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions. Failure by the A.O. to consider the argument advanced by the assessee for arriving at a conclusion is not an error apparent on record although it may be an error or judgment. In our view, the A.O. had no jurisdiction under sec. 154 to pass a second order.” 7. The C.I.T.(A) has considered the matter on merit and noted that in earlier two years, income from contract business was estimated by applying rate of 12.5% and 12% before allowing depreciation only. This position was accepted by the assessee as neither rectification petition nor appeal was filed by for assessment years 1998-99 and 1999-2000.………………………………………………………… ……On the basis of these facts, the Rajasthan High Court held that the Tribunal while accepting the basis net profit rate on the basis of history of the case, found no reason to deviate from the past history of estimating the income of the assessee. The C.I.T.(A) held that the A.O. has not deviated from the past history. Therefore, the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of C.I.T. Vs. Bhawan Va Path Nirman (Bohra) and Co. (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the case under consideration. The assessee has not disputed the above facts recorded by the C.I.T.(A).…………” 21. Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly taking into consideration the finding of facts which have been narrated in the preceding paragraphs, this Bench finds it difficult to hold that the findings arrived at by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as also by the ITAT in rejecting the appeal filed by the appellant to be in any manner erroneous or bad in law. 22. The three appeals thus being devoid of merits, deserves to be and are accordingly, dismissed. 23. 22. The three appeals thus being devoid of merits, deserves to be and are accordingly, dismissed. 23. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.However, there shall be no order as to costs.