This is departmental appeal directed against order of CIT (A) directing ITO to apply rate of tax appropriate to industrial company to assessee. grounds taken assessee as under: "On facts and in circumstances of case, ld. CIT(A) IX, New Delhi, erred in holding that assessee company was industrial company." "On facts and in circumstances of case, ld. CIT(A) IX, New Delhi, was not correct in holding that as assessee company was partner in firm which was engaged in industrial activities, it was industrial company.: Before us departmental representative has raised additional ground as it was purely question of law. This ground was as under: "That learned CIT(A) erred in holding that there was mistake apparent from record and accordingly erred in holding that company is not entitled to grant of status of industrial company in proceedings under section 154 of Act." facts of case are that ITO has made assessment determining total income at figure which was much higher than assessee's returned income. Against this assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) and CIT (A) by his order dt. 18th July 1981 set aside order of ITO directing him to determine income afresh. ITO gave effect to this order on 18th Sept., 1981. assessee moved petition under s. 154 on 5th Oct., 1981 pointing out that in order giving effect to CIT (A) order, there were certain errors which were apparent from record and they should be rectified. Apart from certain other errors mentioned, assessee had mentioned that appropriate rate of tax applicable to assessee had not been applied as assessee was industrial company and appropriate rate should have been applied to it. ITO in letter to assessee wrote that primal facie assessee was not industrial company but he could produce materials and evidence in support of his claim for being treated as industrial company. In reply assessee relied on several decisions of various High Court and in view of these decisions, it was contented that assessee should be treated as industrial company." ITO, however, passed order that assessee could not be treated as industrial company because in this year assessee had not carried on any business or industrial activities and it has only share of profit form firm of M/s Suguoia Associated and some other miscellaneous income. Against this order assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) and it was contended before him that having regard to decisions of various High Court as also certain orders of Tribunal assessee should be treated as industrial company'. CIT(A) found that assessee was partner in firm which was engaged in activity as builder which was industrial company. CIT(A) further held that assessee company took some partners for its business and, therefore nature of business will not change. He held that company was partner in firm which was mainly engaged in manufacture of processing of goods and, therefore, assessee should be treated as industrial company. Department is in appeal before us. We have heard Departmental Representative as well as ld. Counsel. We are inclined to accept additional ground raised by Departmental Representative that s. 154 could not be invoked to settle matter which was highly debatable and depended on interpretation of various decisions of High Court which have taken different view on matter. CIT(A) has not taken not consideration basis issue that whether plea of assessee should have been considered in application under s. 154. If assessee had grievance that its claim for being treated as industrial company was very much there before ITO and had not been accepted, it should certainly file appeal before appellate authorities and it should be decided in accordance with law. assessee has relied on large number of decisions in support of proposition that firm was carrying on activity which involved manufacture and processing of goods and also on issue that whether firm carriers on business itself, partner should get benefits available to firm. It is not necessary for us to go into details of merits of case. We are, however of view that this questions could not have been raised and determined in course of proceedings under s.154 as it could not be held to be mistake apparent from record. By no stretch of imagination it can be held to be mistake apparent from record. By no stretch of imagination it can be held that there was error of law or fact which was apparent from record. W e would, therefore, hold that CIT(A) erred in upholding claim of assessee in proceedings under s. 154 and he should have held that these proceedings were not proper forum for adjudicating assessee debatable claim. order of CIT(A) is, therefore, set aside and order of ITO is restored for reasons given above. appeal is allowed. *** INCOME TAX OFFICER v. SUGUOIA CONSTRUCTION (P) LTD.