Assessee deposited employees’ contribution to EPF and ESI after due date prescribed in respective Acts.  Assessing Officer accepted return filed by assessee. Subsequently Assessing Officer passed a rectification order and disallowed employees’ contribution to EPF and ESI. On appeal the Tribunal held that since question of delay in deposit of employees’ contribution was very much in the assessment records upon which intimation under section 143(1) was served upon assessee and at relevant time there was law in favour of assessee allowing such expenditure, assessee was benefitted by same and failure to follow a divergent view in favour of revenue could not be considered to be an error apparent on record and thus Assessing Officer was not justified to substitute his opinion by invoking provisions of section 154  of the Act. Referred Checkmate Services (P)Ltd v. CIT(2022) 448 ITR 518 / (2023) 290 Taxman 191(SC),, followed  CIT v. Mahavir Drilling Co (2005) 142 Taxman 663/ 273 ITR 201 (MP)(HC)   (AY. 2019-20)