Rectification cannot reopen assessment on fresh material; double-taxation relief must arise from the record itself.

Additional grounds challenging jurisdiction may be entertained in appeal where binding precedent permits such admission. Rectification under section 154 remains confined to mistakes apparent from the record and cannot be used to reopen the assessment or grant double-taxation relief on the basis of fresh material not before the assessing authority at the time of assessment. The order was also not accepted as a separate relief order under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 or the 1961 Act, because the relevant relief formed part of the assessment computation itself. The substantive reference therefore failed, and the rectification-based relief was not sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal could admit and entertain an additional ground challenging jurisdiction; (ii) Whether relief for double taxation could be allowed by way of rectification under section 154 on the basis of material not on record at the time of assessment; (iii) Whether the assessment order could be treated as an order under section 49D of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 or section 91(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether the Tribunal could admit and entertain an additional ground challenging jurisdiction.

Analysis: The controversy was treated as settled by the binding Full Bench decision governing admission of additional grounds in appeal. On that basis, the Tribunal's power to entertain the additional ground was upheld.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether relief for double taxation could be allowed by way of rectification under section 154 on the basis of material not on record at the time of assessment.

Analysis: Rectification under section 154 is confined to mistakes apparent from the record. A patent and self-evident error may be corrected, but the power does not extend to review or reconsideration on the basis of fresh evidence or materials produced after the assessment. Since the documents and proof required for the relief were not before the assessing authority when the assessment was completed, the alleged omission was not rectifiable under section 154.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (iii): Whether the assessment order could be treated as an order under section 49D of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 or section 91(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The relief under those provisions forms part of the assessment computation, and the order sought to be corrected was in substance the assessment order under section 143(3), not a separate order under the relief provisions. The characterization suggested by the assessee was therefore not accepted.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The reference failed on the substantive questions decided, and the assessment-based rectification order was upheld while the unresolved question was not pressed.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 154 can be used only to correct a mistake apparent from the record and cannot be invoked to reopen an assessment or grant relief on the basis of fresh material not available when the original order was made.

---