Rectification for mistake apparent on the record sustained where earlier orders were overlooked, and writ interference was refused.

The Tribunal treated its earlier omission to notice the respondent's filed and referred earlier orders for the relevant years as a mistake apparent on the face of the record and allowed rectification under the Wealth-tax Act framework. The High Court found no perversity in that approach, noting that the issue had already been decided on merits by the Tribunal. It therefore declined to interfere under Article 226 and sustained the rectification order.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in rectifying its earlier order on the ground of a mistake apparent on the face of the record, and whether the High Court should interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The Tribunal recorded that the respondent had filed and referred to earlier orders for the relevant years, but those orders were not noticed in the earlier decision. On that basis, it treated the omission as a mistake apparent on the face of the record and allowed rectification under the rectification provision applicable to the Wealth-tax Act. The High Court found no perversity in that view and held that the matter had already been decided on merits by the Tribunal, so interference in writ jurisdiction was unwarranted.

Conclusion: The rectification order was sustained and no interference was called for under Article 226.

---