Rectification power is limited to the issuing authority; a consent-based appellate order cannot be reopened unilaterally.
Rectification power is confined to the authority whose own order contains the mistake; an Income-tax Officer therefore could not correct an apparent arithmetical error in the Appellate Tribunal's order, and the attempted rectification was invalid. An appellate order supersedes the original order, so any correction must be sought before the appellate authority itself. Where the Tribunal's order reflected a consent or compromise reached by give-and-take, it could not be reopened unilaterally; it could be disturbed only on grounds that would invalidate an agreement, such as fraud, misrepresentation or mistake, proved in proper proceedings. The rectification was quashed and the Tribunal order was held to stand.
Issues: (i) Whether the Income-tax Officer could rectify an order of the Appellate Tribunal by correcting an apparent arithmetical mistake in the Tribunal's computation. (ii) Whether the Tribunal's order, being in the nature of a consent or compromise arrangement, could be reopened unilaterally.
Issue (i): Whether the Income-tax Officer could rectify an order of the Appellate Tribunal by correcting an apparent arithmetical mistake in the Tribunal's computation.
Analysis: The power of rectification was confined to the authority whose own order contained the mistake. The statutory scheme treated the Commissioner, Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Income-tax Officer and Appellate Tribunal as distinct authorities, each empowered to rectify its own mistake and not that of another. Applying the same principle as under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, an appellate order supersedes the original order and the power to correct an error in the appellate order lies only with the appellate authority.
Conclusion: The Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to rectify the Tribunal's order; the rectification made by him was invalid and liable to be quashed.
Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal's order, being in the nature of a consent or compromise arrangement, could be reopened unilaterally.
Analysis: The record showed a process of give and take before the Tribunal, with the assessee agreeing to the reduced additions and withdrawing other objections. Such an order had the character of a settlement between the parties. By analogy to section 96(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, a consent-based decision could not be set aside or varied unilaterally, and it could be disturbed only on grounds that would invalidate an agreement, such as fraud, misrepresentation or mistake, established in appropriate proceedings.
Conclusion: The Tribunal's order was not open to unilateral reopening and had to stand as between the parties.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, and the rectification order was quashed for want of authority and because the underlying Tribunal order was not open to unilateral variation.
Ratio Decidendi: A rectification power is confined to the authority whose own order contains the mistake, and a consent-based appellate order cannot be reopened unilaterally except on grounds that invalidate the compromise.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
