Rectification orders under the income-tax law were held outside the appeal route, making a reference incompetent.

A rectification order enhancing assessed income on the basis of a mistake apparent from the record was held not to fall within the appellate route under the Indian Income-tax Act. As a result, no appeal lay to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and, consequently, no further appeal lay to the Tribunal. Since the underlying order was outside the statutory framework that permitted such a challenge, a reference under section 66(1) was also held incompetent. The assessee therefore had no appellate remedy against the rectification order on the scheme considered.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appeal lay to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against an order of the Income-tax Officer made under Section 35 of the Indian Income-tax Act, and whether a reference under Section 66(1) was competent in relation to such an order.

Analysis: The rectification order under Section 35 enhanced the assessed income by correcting what was treated as a mistake apparent from the record. The Court held that an order made under Section 35 did not fall within the scope of Section 30, with the result that no appeal lay to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and, consequently, no further appeal lay to the Tribunal. In view of the Supreme Court's settled position on the scope of references under Section 66(1), the reference could not be entertained where the underlying appellate order was not one made within the statutory framework authorising such a reference.

Conclusion: No appeal lay against the Section 35 rectification order to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and the reference under Section 66(1) was incompetent.

Final Conclusion: The assessee had no appellate remedy against the rectification order under the statutory scheme considered, and the Court declined to answer the reference.

Ratio Decidendi: A rectification order under Section 35 of the Indian Income-tax Act is not appealable under Section 30, and where the appellate route is unavailable, a reference under Section 66(1) based on such proceedings is incompetent.

---