Rectification jurisdiction cannot extend beyond the dispute before the Tribunal; composite order set aside for fresh hearing.

The Tribunal's rectification jurisdiction was confined to the assessee's challenge to an assessment under section 143(1), where the status was said to have been wrongly taken as an individual instead of an HUF. It was improper to extend the order to the separate pending revision aspect and to directions concerning proceedings under section 143(1)(A) and the related application under section 143(2)(A), because those matters were not within the rectification dispute before it. The earlier composite order was therefore set aside, and the matter was ordered to be heard and disposed of afresh.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's earlier order, which dealt with both the rectification application and a pending revision aspect not before it, should be set aside and the matter restored for fresh hearing.

Analysis: The assessee's grievance was confined to the refusal to rectify the assessment order passed under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the status had been wrongly taken as that of an individual instead of an HUF. The Tribunal had, however, proceeded to travel beyond the scope of the rectification dispute by directing restoration of the matter to the stage of the pending proceedings under section 143(1)(A) and the related application under section 143(2)(A). The order was therefore treated as a composite one covering matters beyond the controversy properly before the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's earlier order was set aside and the matter was directed to be reheard and disposed of afresh.

---