JUDGMENT Heard Shri Parchure, learned counsel for appellant and Shri Thakar, learned counsel for respondent. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ("the ITAT") by impugned order dated June 30, 2009, found interference by Commissioner of Incometax ("the CIT") under section 263 of Income-tax Act, 1961, unwarranted. Shri Parchure, learned counsel submits that Commissioner of Income- tax has intervened under section 263 of Act only because of its finding that while completing assessment for assessment year 2004-05, Assessing Officer ("the AO") omitted to look into correctness or otherwise of apportionment of common expenses to agricultural and non-agricultural segments. Shri Parchure, learned counsel submits that Commissioner of Income-tax has found that Assessing Officer has acted mechanically in matter. According to learned counsel, percentage of apportionment between two expenditures was dif- ferent in every year, thereby necessitating application of mind to relevant facts and as assessment order does not disclose this approach, it is vitiated. He further submits that Commissioner of Income-tax has placed back matter for fresh consideration and, therefore, no prejudice is caused to assessee. Shri Thakar, learned counsel, has invited our attention to previous history. According to him, since assessment year 1996-97, this practice is in vogue and percentage of agricultural and non-agricultural receipt is worked out and in that proportion expenses are also bifurcated under these two heads. He submits that as system is well settled, in return filed, apportionment was, accordingly, shown and it has been accepted by Assessing Officer. As such, there was no scope for intervention under section 263 of Act. He has also relied upon Division Bench judgment of Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT v. Rajasthan Financial Corporation (No. 1) reported in [1998] 229 ITR 246 (Raj). With assistance of respective counsel, we have perused papers. facts show that proportion of agricultural and non-agricultural income/ receipts has been used even while working out apportionment of expenditure under that head. previous history not in dispute shows that since 1996-97, said method is being adopted. It is not in dispute that in return filed by assessee (State Government Corporation), receipts were, accordingly, mentioned and expenditure for those receipts was, accordingly, apportioned and appropriated. This return has been accepted. As such, it cannot be said that assessment order does not show any application of mind. perusal of abovementioned judgment shows limited scope available to Commissioner of Income-tax while exercising jurisdiction under section 263 of Income-tax Act, 1961. Here, long settled practice has been lost sight of and without observing anything in concrete about irrelevance of method or apportionment being followed, matter has been sent back. Had Commissioner of Income-tax noted some facts which necessitated departure from this method, its intervention could have been understood. However, that is not position here. In this situation, we do not see any error in appellate order of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. No case is made out and no substantial question of law arises. appeal is rejected. No order as to costs. *** Commissioner of Income-tax v. Forest Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd