Tribunal power to enhance assessment without departmental appeal invalid; rectification upheld and allocation for route value sustained.

The Appellate Tribunal improperly increased the assessed route-rights value in the absence of a departmental appeal, since making an upward revenue-affecting adjustment was not appropriate without such a challenge; the Tribunal then invoked rectification under the applicable income-tax provision to remove the higher figure and alter the dispositional wording. The Motor Vehicles Act does not prohibit payment on permit transfer, so dividing purchase consideration between route value and vehicle value is a permissible factual and tax assessment exercise. The record supports the department's allocation of the lower route value and corresponding vehicle value for depreciation, which is therefore maintained against the assessee's challenge.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Appellate Tribunal was entitled to enhance the value of the route rights from Rs. 40,000 to Rs. 60,000 in the absence of any departmental appeal, and whether that alleged error vitiated the Tribunal's order.

Analysis: The Tribunal increased the route value to Rs. 60,000 although there was no departmental appeal seeking enhancement; such an adjustment affecting the revenue burden could not properly be made by the Tribunal in those circumstances. The Tribunal subsequently invoked rectification under Section 35 of the relevant Income-tax statute and deleted the portion of its order reflecting the Rs. 60,000 figure, and replaced the dispositional terminology to show the appeal dismissed. The Motor Vehicles Act permits transfer of permits subject to authority permission and procedure but does not expressly prohibit consideration being paid on transfer; therefore, allocation of part of the purchase price to route value as distinct from vehicle value is a permissible factual and tax assessment exercise. The factual material on record supports the department's allocation of Rs. 40,000 as route value and Rs. 85,000 as vehicle value for depreciation purposes.

Conclusion: The Tribunal acted erroneously in fixing the route value at Rs. 60,000 but corrected that error by rectification; the decision affirming the departmental allocation of Rs. 40,000 as route value is supported by the materials and is therefore maintained against the assessee's challenge.

---