Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J. - (1.) IDENTICAL questions came up for consideration before this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It is stated by learned advocate for the petitioner that the said application was rejected. Learned advocate however wanted to distinguish this case relying on a decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Richardson and Cruddas Ltd. v. CIT [1986] 162 ITR 753, where the Bombay High Court held that the excess in the profit and loss account was not includible in the capital base under the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963. In this case, the Surtax Officer proceeded to include the surplus profit under Section 13 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, which was affirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Tribunal held that the question whether retained profit is includible or not is a debatable one and, therefore, it could not be a case of mistake, much less, apparent from the record. The Tribunal also held, on merits, following its earlier order for the assessment year 1978-79 that the lower authorities were wrong in excluding the amount in the computation of capital base. We agree with the reasoning of the Tribunal. This application is, therefore, rejected and rule discharged. There will be no order as to costs.;