Tribunal corrects errors in tax assessment, limits power to rectify mistakes under section 254(2).

The tribunal partly allowed the appellant's applications, correcting typographical errors and directing the assessing officer to consider only the net income received after deduction of tax as taxable income for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07. The tribunal upheld the decision not to consider the original certificate from Poland due to missing crucial information and clarified that power under section 254(2) is limited to rectifying mistakes apparent from the record, not for rehearing or reversing findings based on arguments presented.

---

---

Issues:
1. Consideration of alleged mistakes in the order
2. Non-consideration of original certificate from Poland
3. Typographical errors in the order
4. Interpretation of taxable income and applicability of real income concept
5. Consideration of Circulars and Section 90(2)
6. Exercise of power u/s 254(2) for rectification of mistakes

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appellant moved applications under section 254(2) pointing out alleged mistakes in the order for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07. The mistakes included non-consideration of the original certificate from Poland, lack of discussion on Section 90(2) and Circulars issued by CBDT, and misinterpretation of Article 17(2) of DTAA between India and Poland. The appellant also highlighted typographical errors in the order.

2. The non-consideration of the original certificate from Poland was disputed by the appellant, arguing that the absence of the date on the certificate was due to an oversight by the Poland Company. However, the tribunal rejected this argument, emphasizing the importance of the issuance date for such certificates. The tribunal upheld the decision not to consider the certificate due to the lack of crucial information.

3. Typographical errors in the order were acknowledged, such as the incorrect mention of "Top Legal Managerial Position" instead of "Top Level Managerial Position." The tribunal recognized and rectified these typographical errors to ensure accuracy in the order.

4. The issue of taxable income and the real income concept was deliberated upon. The appellant contended that only the net income should be considered as taxable, citing relevant case laws. The tribunal agreed with the appellant's argument and remitted the issue to the assessing officer to consider only the net income received after deduction of tax from the Poland Company as taxable income.

5. The consideration of Circulars and Section 90(2) was also raised by the appellant. However, the tribunal found that the appellant failed to convincingly demonstrate how these aspects constituted mistakes apparent from the record. Therefore, the tribunal did not find grounds to recall the order based on these issues.

6. The exercise of power under section 254(2) for rectification of mistakes was discussed, emphasizing that such power should only be used in cases of grave errors on facts or law causing apparent injustice to the assessee. Citing relevant case laws, the tribunal clarified that the power under section 254(2) is limited to rectifying mistakes apparent from the record and not for rehearing or reversing findings based on arguments presented.

In conclusion, the tribunal partly allowed the appellant's applications, correcting typographical errors and directing the assessing officer to consider only the net income received after deduction of tax as taxable income. The tribunal's decision for assessment year 2005-06 was applied to assessment year 2006-07 due to similar facts and findings.

---