Rectification jurisdiction is limited to apparent record errors; factual misdescriptions may be corrected, but merits cannot be reopened.

Rectification under the Tribunal's limited error-correction jurisdiction extends only to mistakes apparent from the record. A factual misstatement that the assessees had not disputed the manner of file retrieval from seized floppies was corrected because the record showed such a dispute had been raised. A separate challenge to the Tribunal's findings on the reliability of computer files, the scope of Section 36B(2), and objections based on unauthenticated software and the Evidence Act was rejected because it sought reappreciation of evidence rather than correction of an apparent error. A further factual misdescription regarding sealing of the floppies was also corrected. The substantive findings otherwise remained unchanged.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the recorded statement that the assessees had not contested the revenue's averments on file retrieval from seized floppies was an error apparent from the record; (ii) Whether the findings on reliability of certain computer files, the inapplicability of Section 36B(2), and the rejection of objections based on unauthenticated software or the Evidence Act contained any rectifiable error; (iii) Whether the revenue had shown an apparent error in the observation regarding sealing of the floppies and the related factual reference in paragraph 12 of the earlier order.

Issue (i): Whether the recorded statement that the assessees had not contested the revenue's averments on file retrieval from seized floppies was an error apparent from the record.

Analysis: The materials filed with the rectification request showed that the assessees had, in fact, disputed the manner of file retrieval from the seized floppies. The earlier statement suggesting absence of such contest did not accord with the submissions already on record and amounted to a factual misstatement capable of rectification.

Conclusion: The error was rectified in favour of the assessees.

Issue (ii): Whether the findings on reliability of certain computer files, the inapplicability of Section 36B(2), and the rejection of objections based on unauthenticated software or the Evidence Act contained any rectifiable error.

Analysis: The earlier order had already examined the applicability of Section 36B(2) and had taken a reasoned view that the provision did not govern the printouts in the manner contended by the applicants. The challenge sought a reappreciation of evidence and a fresh view on admissibility, which is beyond rectification. The objections based on unauthenticated software and the parallel invocation of the Evidence Act did not disclose any mistake apparent from the record, and the findings on reliability of the identified files remained undisturbed.

Conclusion: No rectifiable error was found on these grounds, and the applications failed on this issue.

Issue (iii): Whether the revenue had shown an apparent error in the observation regarding sealing of the floppies and the related factual reference in paragraph 12 of the earlier order.

Analysis: The revenue demonstrated that the earlier wording did not correctly reflect the submission made before the Tribunal regarding sealing of the floppies. That misdescription was an apparent factual error. The remaining findings on the record concerning the seizure details and the extent to which the mahazar enabled verification were not shown to be mistaken.

Conclusion: The factual misstatement was corrected in favour of the revenue.

Final Conclusion: The rectification applications resulted in limited corrections to the earlier order, while the substantive findings otherwise remained intact.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification is confined to mistakes apparent from the record and cannot be used to reopen or reargue findings on merits, though clear factual misdescriptions in the recorded order may be corrected.

---