Rectification jurisdiction limited to patent errors: a debatable legal issue cannot justify reopening an earlier tax order.

Rectification under the income-tax savings regime was confined to an obvious mistake apparent from the record, and could not be used to reopen a debatable question of law requiring detailed reasoning. An order passed without jurisdiction was treated as non est, so alternative remedy and delay did not bar writ interference. Applying that principle, the Tribunal's later rectification order, based on a contested legal issue rather than a patent error, was beyond the limited rectification power and unsustainable. The rectification order was quashed and the earlier appellate order restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal could refuse interference on the ground of alternative remedy and delay when the challenge was to its jurisdiction to rectify an earlier order. (ii) Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction under the rectification provision to reopen its earlier decision, and whether the matter involved a mistake apparent from the record.

Issue (i): Whether the Tribunal could refuse interference on the ground of alternative remedy and delay when the challenge was to its jurisdiction to rectify an earlier order.

Analysis: An order made without jurisdiction is non est, and in such a case the existence of an alternative remedy does not bar the exercise of writ jurisdiction. The delay urged against the revenue also did not prejudice the assessee, because no reference question survived while the rectification order remained operative.

Conclusion: The preliminary objections based on alternative remedy and delay failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction under the rectification provision to reopen its earlier decision, and whether the matter involved a mistake apparent from the record.

Analysis: The assessment-year proceedings were governed by the earlier Income-tax Act regime by virtue of the saving provision, and the development rebate recomputation under the earlier law was treated as rectification under the statutory fiction attached to section 35(11) of the 1922 Act. The power of rectification is confined to an obvious and patent mistake; a point depending on rival Supreme Court decisions and requiring detailed reasoning is not a mistake apparent from the record. The Tribunal's later order rested on a debatable question of law and therefore exceeded the limited rectification jurisdiction conferred by law.

Conclusion: The Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to rectify its earlier order, and the rectification order was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the rectification order was quashed, and the earlier appellate order stood restored.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification jurisdiction extends only to an obvious mistake apparent from the record and cannot be used to reopen a debatable question of law or to alter an order where the governing statutory regime leaves no such rectification power.

---