RAM RATTAN, A.M. Revenue's appeal in I.T.A. no.549/Chandi/84 was disposed of by Delhi Bench-E, camp at Chandigarh, vide its order dt. 22nd Nov.,1985. appeal by Revenue was dismissed. Against said order ITO. Distt.1 (iv), Patiala, had now moved miscellaneous petition under s.254(2) stating that there are factual mistakes in order of Tribunal and, therefore same should be rectified and conclusion of Tribunal reversed. 2. It would be worthwhile to state in brief facts of case. At time of original assessment assessee had claimed deduction under s. 80HHA being small scale industrial undertaking. This was allowed by ITO. Subsequently, ITO noticed that value of plant and machinery of assessee was more than Rs. 10 lakhs and, therefore, it was not small scale industry as provided under s. 80HHA of Act. He, therefore, withdrew deduction allowed under s. 80HHA of Act. It was claimed before ITO that machinery to extent of Rs.33,280 had not been installed till 30th Sept.,1979, last day of accounting period relevant to asst. yr. 1980-81. Further to extent of Rs.11,000, value represented tools and not machinery and after deducting these two items aggregating to Rs. 44,280, value of plant and machinery would fall below Rs. 10 lakhs and, therefore, it was small scale industry and entitled to deduction under s. 80HHA. claim was negatived by ITO on ground that assessee had claimed depreciation and investment allowance on this machinery and same were duly allowed and therefore it did not lie in its mouth later to say that this had not been installed and was under erection. CIT(A), however, accepted assessee's contention and held that pelting machine of value of Rs. 33,288 had been installed on 2nd Nov., 1979 i.e. after close of previous year which had ended on 30th Sept., 1979. He also held that tools of value of Rs. 11,800 did not fall under category of plant and machinery. These findings by CIT(A) were upheld by Tribunal as same were not controverted by ld. Departmental Representative. It is against these finding of Tribunal that ITO has moved miscellaneous petition. He has now filed in paper book Schedule-A being fixed asset forming part of balance-sheet as on 30th Sept., 1979 on which depreciation was claimed. Additions to plant and machinery were of order of Rs. 99,713.89p. As per this statement ITO has also filed copy of machinery account during accounting period 1978-79. dispute is regarding pelting machine. In this account, there are following entries regarding purchases of this machine. "25- Truck freight on pleting machine vide Rs. 9-1979 GR. No. 29403 dt. 24/9 T. No. UTF-2267 1,055 B. No. 92 dt. 33/9 C/o One pelting -do- 33,280 machine complete (under erection) Id. departmental representative pointed out that machine was purchased on 23rd Sept., 1979 and it was carried through truck vide GR dt. 23rd Sept., 1979. It was transported from Mainpuri in U.P. to premises of assessee in Bahadurgarh. It reached Bahadurgarh on 25th Sept., 1979 as entry i n machinery account in made on 25th Sept., 1979 itself. He further contended that it must have been erected before 30th Sept.,1979. He, therefore, urged that this machine was erected before 30th Sept., 1979, depreciation and investment allowance on same were also claimed. Therefore same should not have been excluded from value of machinery as on 30th Sept., 1979 for purpose of determining as to whether assessee was small scale industry for purpose of s. 80HHA. According to him this was mistake apparent from record. 3. ld. counsel for assessee, on other hand, contended that machinery had been installed on 2nd Nov., 1979 as installation charges regarding this machinery furnished by assessee showed that amount of Rs.5,037.30 was debited in books of accounts on 2nd Nov., 1979. He further stated that claim for depreciation and investment allowance was wrongly m d e inadvertently which had since been withdrawn by CIT(A). He, therefore, urged that factual mistake could be corrected subsequently. He also referred to copy of machinery account referred to earlier which showed that said machinery was under erection. He, therefore, urged that there was no mistake apparent from record in order of Tribunal and miscellaneous application deserved to be rejected. 4 . We have given our careful consideration to rival submission. ITO has firstly relied on entries dt. 25th Sept., 1979 regarding purchase and transport of machinery as per machinery a/c. Secondly, he has relied on assessee's claim for depreciation and investment allowance. We notice that in machinery account on 25th Sept., 1979 machinery s were shown under erection. Immediately thereafter on 29th Sept., 1979 depreciation @20per cent on plant and machinery is credited in this account. This included depreciation on Rs. 33,218 as well as freight charges thereon of Rs. 1,055. ITO allowed depreciation, it appears, without making any investigation. word "under erection" against entry dt. 25th Sept., 1979 were indicator for investigation as to whether this machine had actually been erected upto 30th Sept., 1979, Nothing has been brought by him on record and accepted claim of assessee straightway. On other hand, erection charges for this machine had been debited in this very account on 2nd Feb., 1979. ld. departmental representative was asked by Bench to show bill for erection charges which had been debited on 2nd Nov., 1979. He was unable to produce same. This bill will determine as to when erection was completed. actual payment could be either on date of completion of erection or later or even in advance etc. This document has also not been supplied by ITO alongwith miscellaneous petition even though other documents have been included in paper book. No such document was made available to Tribunal at time of hearing of appeal. This was also not controverted by ld. departmental representative. From these facts it is apparent that for arriving at correct decision about erection, one has to investigate further into matter. Such investigation is cut of purview of s.254(2) of Act. entry dt. 25th Sept., 1979 in machinery account also shows that machine was under erection. In absence of any documentary evidence statement that it had been erected by 30th Sept., 1979 was only surmise by ld. departmental representative which could not be entertained even in regular appeal, much less in proceeding under s. 254(2). We, therefore, hold that there is no mistake apparent from record in order of Tribunal. mere claim by assessee for depreciation and investment allowance, whether inadvertently, or advertently, and allowed by ITO without any investigation or proper enquiry would not debar assessee from getting mistakes corrected, subsequently. In fact ITO had no jurisdiction to rectify same which facts needed investigation before arriving at correct conclusion and appeal by Revenue was not maintainable even on this account. In view of above discussions, we do not find any merit in miscellaneous application filed by ITO. This same is rejected. *** INCOME TAX OFFICER v. SWASTIKA OIL & FERTILIZERS