Rectification under Income-tax law requires an apparent record error; a non-apparent omission cannot sustain further reference.

A rectification application under section 254 of the Income-tax Act was rejected because the alleged omission was not a mistake apparent from the record and therefore fell outside the narrow scope of rectification. The Bombay HC upheld that view, and once the rectification order stood, no further question survived for reference because the earlier order had already attained finality. The Tribunal's rejection of the rectification petition was upheld, and the reference application was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the rectification application on the ground that no mistake apparent from the record existed and whether any further question survived for reference.

Analysis: The application arose from the Tribunal's earlier order allowing investment allowance and from a subsequent request for rectification. The Court held that the omission complained of did not fall within the narrow scope of rectification under section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, because the alleged error was not a mistake apparent on the face of the record. Once the rectification order was upheld, the proposed second question did not survive, as the earlier order had already attained finality.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's rejection of the rectification petition was upheld and the application for reference was dismissed.

---