Rectification cannot deny exemption without examining saving provisions; a new accrual plea outside the record was not entertained.

Rectification under section 154 is limited to a mistake apparent from the record and cannot be used to refuse exemption without examining the effect of an earlier exemption and the saving clause under section 297(2)(k). On that point, the matter required fresh consideration because the Assessing Officer had not ined whether the prior approval or exemption survived under the repealed and corresponding new provisions. A separate accrual-based argument about taxing rental receipt in an earlier year was outside the scope of the rectification record and was not entertained. The exemption issue was restored for reconsideration, while the alternative contention remained rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the claim of exemption could be examined in rectification proceedings under section 154 and whether the Assessing Officer was justified in rejecting the claim without considering the effect of the earlier exemption and the saving provision under the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) Whether the rental receipt could be taxed in the year of receipt on the basis of accrual in an earlier year.

Issue (i): Whether the claim of exemption could be examined in rectification proceedings under section 154 and whether the Assessing Officer was justified in rejecting the claim without considering the effect of the earlier exemption and the saving provision under the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Rectification under section 154 is confined to a mistake apparent from the record, that is, a patent and obvious mistake not requiring long-drawn reasoning or debate. The assessee's grievance was that exemption had been denied merely because registration under section 12A was not on record at the time of processing, while the assessee also relied on the earlier governmental exemption and the effect of section 297(2)(k) regarding approvals, recognitions and exemptions granted under the repealed Act. The record showed that the Assessing Officer had not examined whether the earlier exemption survived under the saving clause and whether it was consistent with the corresponding provisions of the new Act. That omission required fresh consideration and could not be treated as a completed adjudication against the assessee in rectification.

Conclusion: The issue was remitted for fresh consideration and the assessee succeeded on this point.

Issue (ii): Whether the rental receipt could be taxed in the year of receipt on the basis of accrual in an earlier year.

Analysis: This contention was not raised before the Assessing Officer in the rectification proceedings and did not arise from the order under section 154. As it was outside the scope of the rectification appeal, the Tribunal declined to entertain it on merits.

Conclusion: The contention was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The order was set aside to the limited extent of the exemption claim and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh decision, while the alternative accrual-based plea remained rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim involving the effect of an earlier exemption and the saving of rights under the repealed law cannot be denied in rectification without examining the relevant saving provision, but a new accrual-based contention not arising from the rectification record cannot be entertained.

---