JUDGMENT
Swatanter Kumar, J.
Commissioner of Income-tax being aggrieved from the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, dated 28-82003 has preferred the present appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). It is contended that the following substantial question of law arises for consideration of the court in the present appeal:
“(A) Whether Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in setting aside the order passed by the assessing officer under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
(B) Whether Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the allowability of claim of payments towards Provident Fund (PF), Family Pension (FP), Employee State Insurance (ESI) and administrative charges are debatable issues and cannot be termed as mistake apparent on record?”
2. The assessed had filed his return for the assessment year 1992-93 and assessment was completed vide order dated 20-1-1994 under section 143(3) of the Act at an income of Rs. 19,95,900. The assessing officer issued a notice under section 154 of the Act stating why the payments of ESI, PF etc., made on 15-4-1992 under section 43B, and payments made in excess of Rs. 10,000 be not added back to income. The claim of the assessed was not accepted. Against this order the assessed preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), which was also dismissed by the First Appellate Authority vide order dated 10-5-1996. The matter was initially accepted by the assessing officer and subsequently it was held that making these additions would not amount to correction of mistake apparent on face of the record, rather it would be re-determination of controversial and issues which are seriously debatable. A Second appeal was preferred by the assessed before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, which was partly allowed. The Appellate Authority accepted the plea of the assessed in relation to payment of PF, EPF and ESI etc., and in relation to the levy of penalty interest under section 234A of the Act, the matter was remanded and restored to the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order. The question of charging of simple interest was decided against the assessed, while relying upon the judgment of the Tribunal itself, in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Kamax Corpn. (IT Appeal No. 5221 (Delhi) of 1993). The findings, the correctness of which is really questioned in the present appeal, is only with regard to the payment of PF, EPF, ESI and other administrative charges and their addition/ deletion at the relevant time. The Appellate Tribunal in this regard held as under:
“Having considered the rival submissions and from a careful perusal of record. I find force in the contention of the assessed that under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, the revenue authorities can make only those rectifications which are error apparent from the record. They cannot adjudicate the issues which are debatable ones and a mistake which is not apparent cannot be rectified. In support of this proposition, we rely upon the following judgments:
Nirmal Udyog v. CIT (1998) 232 ITR 493 (MP)
M.V.S. Sastry v. CIT (1998) 232 ITR 651 (Mad.)
CIT v. Eurasia Publishing House (P.) Ltd (1998) 232 ITR 381 (Delhi)
CIT v. Keshri Metal (P.) Ltd (1999) 237 ITR 165 (SC)
CIT v. Hindustan Kokoku Wires Ltd (2001) 250 ITR 41 (Delhi).
It is also evident from the record that in assessment year 1993-94, prima facie adjustments were made by the assessing officer and the same were deleted by the CIT(A) after holding that the determination of validity of the claim of payment of PF etc. is a debatable issue and no disallowance can be made under section 43B by doing prima facie adjustment. In these circumstances, it is an admitted position that the allowability of claim of payments towards, PF, EPF, ESI and administrative charges are debatable issues. As such, these claims cannot be disallowed under section 154 when they are admittedly allowed by the assessing officer while framing a regular assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. We are, therefore, of the view that the lower authorities are not justified in making the disallowance. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the impugned additions are deleted.”
3. The above conclusions of the Appellate Tribunal is based upon the judgments afore-referred and is also relatable to the facts on record. The Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority and its conclusion in that regard can hardly be interfered by this court within the scope of section 260A of the Act. The provisions of section 154 of the Act clearly indicate that it is only a mistake apparent from the record which can be rectified by the assessing officer and accordingly, could amend the order of assessment. Determination of controversial or debatable issues in exercise of this rectification powers would not be permissible. How, when and under what circumstances, the amendment could be made are clearly stated in the’ provisions and they have amply been clarified by judicial pronouncements. The questions raised by the appellant in the present appeal having been answered by various judgments do not give rise to any question of law or substantial questions of law to be answered by this Court. In any case, the view taken by the Appellate Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the present case, does not call or any interference.
5. As no question of law, much less any substantial question of law arises in the present appeal, we dismiss the same without any orders as to costs.