F.C. RUSTAGI, J.M.: grounds raised in this appeal, by Revenue, read as under: "1. That ld. CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts in holding that disallowance of Rs. 29,87,768 made while computing relief under s. 80J read with r. 19A was not prima facie inadmissible in view of provisions contained in s. 141A(3) of IT Act. That ld. CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts in holding that mistake of law apparent from record within meaning of s. 154 of IT Act has occurred in above noted case while making provisional assessment under s. 141-A of IT Act." assessment year involved in 1980-81. After income-tax return was filed by assessee, provisional assessment was famed by ITO under s. 141A(3) and refund was granted. ITO in course of framing provisional assessment had made certain disallowances on account of deduction under s. 80J. assessee considering that said adjustment regarding relief under s. 80J in form of reducing relief, was not prima facie deduction which should not have been allowed and, therefore, application under s. 154 for rectification of provisional assessment was moved, which was rejected by ITO. When assessee came in appeal before CIT(A) against said order of ITO under s. 154 in respect of rectification of provisional assessment framed under s. 141(3), CIT(A), accepting contention of assessee, though partly, granted relief to assessee mainly in respect of deduction under s. 80J. It is in this action of CIT(A) which disputed by Revenue before us. ld. senior Departmental Representative Mr. R.K. Bali, with exclamation to start with, gave certain dates and facts suggesting that all was not well with claim of assessee. He submitted that assessment year involved was 1980-81 and strangely enough according to him return was filed on 1st April, 1980 and provisional assessment was framed on 8th April, 1980, as consequence of which refund of Rs. 1,04,51,994 was granted. assessee filed its claim of refund in sum of Rs. 1,24,86,018 and in that respect filed application for rectification dt. 9th April, 1980 on 15th April, 1980. One of claim in s 154 application that of assessee, was that borrowed capital should have been taken into account for relief under s. 80J. rectification order was passed on 19th April, 1980, though vide order of ITO rectification application was fixed for hearing for 23rd April, 1980 vide ITOs letter dt. 19th April, 1980 but its hearing was advanced on request of assessee s counsel for 19th April, 1980. No sooner ITO rejected assessee s claim on 19th April, 1980, on that very date appeal was filed and on request of assessee s counsel for early hearing, appeal was heard on 21st April, 1980 and decided on 28th April, 1980. He was, however, fair enough to admit that regular assessment in this case was framed on 25th March, 1983 and in that case Revenue has accepted assessee s claim on merit regarding relief under s. 80J on basis of contention made in s. 154 application. He submitted that whatever claim was made by assessee in rectification application, was in respect of issue which was not free from debate of issue which was not free from debate and in that connection, he relied on cases of T.S. Balaram, ITO vs. Volkart Brothers & Ors. (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC) and R.A. Boga vs. AAC (1977) 110 ITR 1 (P&H) (FB). Before fast moment of matter regarding assessee refund, as consequence of provisional assessment expeditiously fast hearing of appeal by CIT(A) could have any effect on our mind, ld. counsel for assessee Mr. Dinehs Gogna went in to still deeper background of issue and submitted that whatever harm has been done by ITO while assessee s claim in s. 154 proceedings in just for goodness of assessee and cooperation meeted out by assessee to Department. He submitted that nothing may turn on what he is going so submit but fact is that accounting year relevant for asst. yr. 1980-81 was not ending 31st May, 1980 but it was 30th Sept., 1979. He submitted that after 15th March, 1980, some time in time third week, assessee was requested by ITO to deposit some amount in order to complete his budget and assessee, to be nice to Department and in order to cooperate, deposited about Rs. 75 lakh in fag end of March, 1980. Naturally, since said amount was deposited with view to complete budget as it was not advance-tax nor its payment was warranted under any provision of IT Act, assessee, in order to get back its money, had to file return on 1st April, 1980 and naturally was in hurry to get back its refund, which was more than crore, to be specific it was Rs. 1,24,86,018. With this submission in background, ld. counsel for assessee submitted that there was nothing wrong, if assessee hurried disposal of matter as both stages, that of ITO for provisional assessment and rectification and before CIT(A). He submitted that there is no question of debate in respect of issues raised by assessee in rectification application. Actually, if s. 141A is read carefully, it is only certain types of additions which are warranted thereunder. Denial of relief under s. 80J in way ITO has resorted to, is not prima facie disallowance which could be made. Therefore, on basis of these facts and placing his reliance on order of CIT(A), he also placed his reliance on case of CIT vs. Simpson and Company (1980) 122 ITR 283 (Mad) and submitted that Special Leave Petition in respect of said case stands dismissed, as reported in (1983) 141 ITR (St.) 50. After taking into consideration interesting part of arguments respectively projected both by Revenue and assessee regarding issue under dispute and appreciating by carefully perusing facts on records, w e are unable to interfere in finding of CIT(A). fast moment of assessee before ITO in respect of provisional assessment and rectification application proceedings and before CIT(A) in respect of its first appeal, preferred against s. 154 order of ITO, as pleaded by ld. Departmental Representative failed miserably to prejudice us against assessee s claims, moment we go through its cooperative attitude and attempt to help Revenue for completion of its budget, which is neither warranted under IT Act nor is obligation of assessee. It is just normally due by assessee for sake of goodwill. If ITO, for its own purpose of completing budget, was good enough to ask for heavy deposits in fag end of relevant year, there was nothing wrong for assessee to claim its refund, as consequence of provisional assessment, which is very common, as normally is considered as deal. What we are surprised to look at is that in course of provisional assessment, as well-detailed by CIT(A) in paras 11 to 13 of his order and going through said section carefully, which is also extracted and placed by CIT(A) in his order, denial of relief to extent of Rs. 28,68,073 on account of relief under s. 80J was not prima facie disallowance. As observed by CIT(A) in para 12(c) of his order, said amount comprised of two disallowances: (i) On account of reason given at Sr. No. (v) of para 5 Rs. 1,73,469 mentioned by CIT(A) in his order. (ii) On account of reason given at Sr. Nos. (i) to (iv) of para 5 Rs. 26,94,604 mentioned by CIT(A) in his order with these two disallowances, CIT(A) in his order has dealt with at length and correctly. We, therefore, confirm action of CIT(A) that there was nothing prima facie from return of assessee that certain disallowance of type regarding denial of relief under s. 80J should have been refused by ITO. It is rightly beyond purview of s. 141A and disallowance of Rs. 26,94,604 should not have been made. If disallowance was against law, naturally it was mistake apparent from record and, as observed by CIT(A) in paras 14 to 16 of his order, mistake was apparent and there was no question of any debate about same. We need not even go to law relied upon by both parties in order to adjudicate issue because it is apparent from facts in background and by mere reading of s. 141 that no relief under s. 80J should have been denied by ITO in course of provisional assessment, as it was not prima facie disallowance. Anyway, reliance of ld. senior Departmental Representative on case of Volkart Brothers & Ors. (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC) supra is misplaced. When we take into consideration s. 154 proceedings, we find that mistake was apparent from record, which was not only obvious but patent one. To establish same, either any long-drawn process of reasoning on points on which there would be two opinions, could be there. Since claim raised by assessee in s. 154 proceedings was free from debate, said case could not be fatal to assessee s claim. other case was that of R.A. Boga, relied upon by ld. senior Departmental Representative finding in which was that provisional assessment was not meant to merge in regular assessment. This case also cannot come to rescue of Revenue because of distinction in facts. If this judgment is gone through carefully, it, on other hand, supports contention of assessee. Regarding other part of assessee s contention that computation of relief employed for s. 80J relief could not be on proportionate basis, this is true that in case of Simpson and Company (1980) 122 ITR 283 (Mad) (supra), as per flash available in (1983) 141 ITR 50 (Stat.) even Special Leave Petition stands dismissed. But these cases support contention of assessee so far merit is concerned. Here, in short, to summarise finding and issue in background is that in course of provisional assessment proceedings deduction what was not prima facie disallowance could not be made and demanding rectification of same was mistake apparent from record and there could not be any debate about same. In light of above discussion and for reasons given by CIT(A) in his order, his action is hereby confirmed. In result, revenue s appeal dismissed . *** INCOME TAX OFFICER v. OSWAL WOLLEN MILLS