Reference answers under the Income-tax Act cannot be reviewed or substantively altered through CPC rectification powers.

A High Court answering an Income-tax Act reference exercises special statutory jurisdiction, so the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply as such and there is no power to review a concluded answer unless the statute provides it. Sections 151 and 152 CPC could not be used to rectify, modify or substantively alter the earlier reference answers. Section 152 is limited to clerical mistakes, arithmetical errors, and accidental slips or omissions, so an alleged failure to consider section 37(2A) and Explanation 2 was not correctable in those proceedings. The applications for rectification, modification or review were therefore not maintainable and were rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court, after answering a reference under the Income-tax Act, 1961, could rectify, modify or review its answer by invoking sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (ii) Whether the alleged omission to consider section 37(2A) and its Explanation 2 could be corrected in such proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court, after answering a reference under the Income-tax Act, 1961, could rectify, modify or review its answer by invoking sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The power exercised by the High Court on a reference under the Income-tax Act is a special statutory jurisdiction. The Code of Civil Procedure does not apply as such to reference proceedings, and the statute provides no power of review to revisit an answer already given. The court's jurisdiction under the reference provisions is to decide the questions of law referred and communicate the judgment to the Tribunal; once that is done, there is no statutory basis to invoke inherent powers or the rectification provisions of the Code to alter the concluded answer.

Conclusion: The High Court had no jurisdiction to review or modify its earlier answers under sections 151 or 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Issue (ii): Whether the alleged omission to consider section 37(2A) and its Explanation 2 could be corrected in such proceedings.

Analysis: Section 152 of the Code permits only correction of clerical mistakes, arithmetical errors, or accidental slips or omissions. The present applications sought a substantive change in the legal answer already rendered on merits, not a mere correction of a clerical or accidental error. The alleged non-consideration of a statutory provision, even if assumed, could not be treated as an accidental slip within the meaning of section 152.

Conclusion: The alleged omission was not rectifiable under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Final Conclusion: The applications seeking rectification, modification or review of the earlier reference answers were not maintainable and stood rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A High Court answering a reference under the Income-tax Act, 1961 cannot review or substantively alter its concluded answer by resort to sections 151 or 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, because such jurisdiction is not inherent and section 152 is confined to clerical or accidental errors only.

---