HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B.LOKUR AND HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. NO.469 OF 2011 Dt: 27-12-2011 Between Commissioner of Income-Tax-I, Visakhapatnam. …Appellant AND M/s.L.G.Polymers (India) Pvt. Ltd., R.R.Venkatapuram, Visakhapatnam. …Respondent HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B.LOKUR AND HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. NO.469 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: (PER HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B.LOKUR) The appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 20.01.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam Bench, Visakhapatnam, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in I.T.A.No.614/Vizag/2004, for the assessment year 2000-2001. An assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer in respect of the assessee. The Assessing Officer suo motu sought to rectify the assessment order under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). A rectification in the assessment order was made by the Assessing Officer and feeling aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal which came to be allowed by the Commissioner of Income (Appeals) by his order dated 20.08.2004. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 20.08.2004, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal relied upon an earlier Judgment in the case of KRISHNA INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LTD. v. A.C.I.T. (I.T.A. No.231/Vizag/2003, dt.29.12.2008) and noted that in that case it was observed that the issue whether Minimum Alternative Tax (MAT) Credit has to be adjusted first for the purpose of computing interest under Section 234B or 234C of the Act, is a debatable issue and therefore a rectification application under Section 154 of the Act was not maintainable. Learned counsel for the Revenue is unable to tell us whether the decision of the Tribunal in the case of KRISHNA INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LTD. has been accepted by the Revenue or not. We do not find any error in the view taken by the Tribunal in this regard and in our opinion, since the issue is a debatable issue, the question of rectification does not arise. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. ( MADAN B.LOKUR, CJ ) ( SANJAY KUMAR, J ) Dt: 27-12-2011. VGSR