Rectification jurisdiction and limitation: apparent error correction upheld, but the rectification order failed as time-barred.

Rectification is confined to patent errors apparent from the record and cannot operate as a review. Where assessment proceedings had already commenced before the amendment introducing a three-year limit, the earlier view that the assessment was time-barred was treated as an apparent error and rectification on that point was upheld. However, the rectification application itself was filed beyond the permissible period of more than two years from the original appellate order, and the rectification order was therefore held time-barred and unsustainable. The appeal ultimately succeeded and the rectification order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal's original order could be corrected in rectification proceedings on the ground that it suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record in holding the assessment time-barred. (ii) Whether the rectification order itself was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the Tribunal's original order could be corrected in rectification proceedings on the ground that it suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record in holding the assessment time-barred.

Analysis: Rectification is confined to patent mistakes apparent from the record and cannot be used as a substitute for review or rehearing. The assessment proceedings had already commenced before the amending provision introducing a three-year limitation. The applicable legal position was that pending proceedings are not defeated unless the new law expressly or by necessary implication so provides. On that basis, the earlier view that the assessment was time-barred was treated as an apparent error within rectification jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The rectification on this issue was valid and the finding was against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the rectification order itself was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The rectification application was filed more than two years after the original appellate order. In the absence of any contrary material, the rectification proceedings were held to be beyond the permissible period.

Conclusion: The rectification order was time-barred and could not be sustained; this issue was in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the rectification order was set aside, leaving the assessee with the ultimate relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A rectification power can be exercised only for an error apparent on the face of the record, and a rectification order passed beyond the prescribed period is unsustainable.

---