Tribunal held that the CIT(A) took a  different view holding that return filed under s. 139(4) would not dilute non-furnishing the return before the end of relevant assessment year as required under S.  139(1). The CIT(A) in the  rectification order relied on the Supreme Court decision. The CIT(A) had taken two different views. When two views were possible on the same issue and the issue which needed to be decided after debate and deliberations it was not permitted to make the rectification under S.  154. Under S.  154 the authorities were permitted to rectify the mistake which was apparent from the record and in the instant case, there was no mistake which was apparent from the record and the issue required to be discussed deliberately and various case law considered. Therefore, the order passed by the CIT(A) under S.  154 was bad in law and unsustainable. (AY. 2012-13 to 2015-16)