Rectification and natural justice in tax appeals: unrecorded counsel impression is not a record mistake, but denial of hearing vitiates disposal.

Rectification under section 36 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act was confined to a mistake apparent from the record, so a claim based on counsel's unrecorded impression that the appeal would be heard again on merits was not maintainable. However, where the appeal was disposed of without giving a full and fair opportunity to argue the merits after the commission report, the order offended natural justice and was vitiated. The Tribunal's rectification rejection was upheld, but the merits dismissal was quashed and the appeals were remitted for fresh hearing and decision on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Tribunal could entertain an application under section 36 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act to correct the alleged omission to hear the appeal on merits; (ii) whether the appeal had been disposed of without affording a full and fair opportunity of hearing, warranting quashing of the Tribunal's order and remittal of the appeals.

Issue (i): Whether the Tribunal could entertain an application under section 36 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act to correct the alleged omission to hear the appeal on merits.

Analysis: Rectification under section 36 is confined to a mistake apparent from the record. A grievance that counsel was under an impression that the appeal would be heard again on merits after the commission report was dealt with does not emerge from the record itself and requires inquiry outside the record. That situation is distinct from an error created by the Tribunal's own inadvertence in omitting to deal with a ground already urged.

Conclusion: The application under section 36 was not maintainable, and rejection of the rectification request was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the appeal had been disposed of without affording a full and fair opportunity of hearing, warranting quashing of the Tribunal's order and remittal of the appeals.

Analysis: The material before the Court showed that counsel was left with the impression that he would be given an opportunity to argue the appeal on the merits, while the appeal was disposed of without such further opportunity. On those facts, the hearing was not full and fair, and the disposal of the appeal offended the requirements of natural justice.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's order dismissing the appeals was liable to be quashed and the appeals were required to be reheard and decided afresh on merits.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the ground of denial of natural justice, the Tribunal's merits order was set aside, and the matters were remitted for fresh disposal.

Ratio Decidendi: A mistaken impression in counsel's mind, not reflected on the record, does not constitute a mistake apparent from the record for rectification, but where an appeal is disposed of without a full and fair hearing, the order is vitiated for breach of natural justice and can be quashed with a direction for rehearing.

---