1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2231 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax - 13 Mumbai ..Appellant. Vs. Hiralal H. Daga ..Respondent. .... Mr. A.S. Shivsharan for the Appellant. Mr. P.J. Pardiwala, Senior Advocate with Mr. Atul K. Jasani for the Respondent. ..... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, & J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. 4th January, 2010. P.C. : The Tribunal has observed in paragraph 9 of its judgment dated 11th February, 2009 that the power of the assessing officer under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 being confined to a case where there is a mistake apparent on the record, such a mistake will have to be an obvious and patent mistake which could be established without a long drawn out process or reasoning on points on which there is conceivably more than one opinion. The Tribunal 2 noted that the assessing officer did not give credit while making a calculation under Section 158 BFA on the self assessment tax deposit by the assessee. This issue itself was debatable. Moreover, the question as to whether the assessee had or had not filed their return within the period of limitation was itself a matter which was debatable and the CIT (Appeals), following the decision of the Tribunal had held that the due date for the filing of the return was 15th December, 2000 and not 18th May, 2000 by excluding the time taken by the assessing officer for allowing the assessee to take photocopies of the documents which were in the possession of the assessing officer. The Tribunal has taken the view that there was no mistake apparent on the record and consequently recourse to the provisions of Section 154 was not justifiable. The finding is a finding of fact and does not raise any substantial question of law. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)mm