AO on the basis of rectification application rectified the assessment order and allowed unobserved depreciation of earlier years. CIT revised the order. On appeal the appellate Tribunal set aside the revision order following the judgement in CIT v. Virmani Industries Pvt. Ltd., (1995) 216 ITR 607 which view has been followed by several High Courts as well as by the Tribunal and held that when the claim of the respondent was justifiably allowed by the assessing officer then the same could not have been interfered with by the Commissioner by invoking the provisions of S.  263 of the Act because the rectification order could not be construed to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue.  On appeal by the revenue, High Court affirmed the view of the Tribunal. (Arising from I.T.A. No.3055/ Mum/2015  dt. 28-10-205) (ITA no 1029 of 2017 dt.  23-2-2020  (AY. 2011-12)