Court emphasizes separate assessment years, rejects rectification based on disagreement with Tribunal decision.

The court dismissed the application under section 254(2) regarding the allowability of commission, emphasizing the need to consider each assessment year separately. It highlighted that disagreement with the Tribunal's decision does not automatically warrant rectification unless there is a clear mistake on the face of the record. The judgment underscored the importance of following proper legal procedures to challenge original orders rather than seeking rectification based on disagreement with the Tribunal's conclusions.

---

---

Issues involved: The judgment deals with the rejection of an application under section 254(2) regarding the allowability of commission, the correctness of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's decision, and the disallowance of commission for a specific individual for the assessment year 1982-83.

Regarding the first issue: The petitioner sought reference on whether the Tribunal erred in rejecting the application under section 254(2) for the allowability of commission to Shri Chander Mohan, which had been allowed except for specific years. The Tribunal dismissed the application under section 254(2) as it found no mistake apparent on the record calling for rectification, emphasizing that each assessment year must be considered separately.

Regarding the second issue: The Tribunal's decision not to follow orders from a previous year for the assessment year 1983-84, despite similar facts, was challenged. The judgment highlighted that the mere disagreement with the Tribunal's conclusion does not warrant an application under section 254(2) unless there is a clear mistake on the face of the record.

Regarding the third issue: The Tribunal's disallowance of commission to Shri Chander Mohan for the assessment year 1982-83 was contested. The judgment emphasized that the Tribunal's decision was based on the absence of a mistake warranting rectification, and the allowance of a similar application for a different year does not automatically justify the same for the current assessment year.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the application, stating that no question of law arose in this case, and emphasized the importance of challenging original orders through the appropriate legal procedures rather than seeking rectification based on disagreement with the Tribunal's conclusions.

---