Rectification jurisdiction cannot reopen treaty-based surcharge and cess claims once the merits have already been decided.

Rectification under section 154 cannot be used to reargue a concluded claim against surcharge and education cess on income taxed under the India-USA tax treaty. A request that seeks reconsideration of the merits, rather than correction of a mistake apparent from the record, falls outside rectification jurisdiction. The text notes that the earlier appellate view had already rejected the treaty-based challenge and that the applicable precedent was against the assessee. On that basis, the rejection of the rectification application was upheld and the challenge to the levy failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rejection of the rectification application under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking deletion of surcharge and education cess on income taxed under the India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, was justified.

Analysis: The request made in rectification was in substance an attempt to revisit the merits of the earlier appellate order, which had already considered and rejected the claim against levy of surcharge and education cess. Such a dispute did not disclose any mistake apparent from the record. A rectification jurisdiction cannot be used for reappreciation of the issue or for modification of a concluded view. The decision also noted that the levy issue had been decided against the assessee in the applicable precedent and that the treaty position did not warrant interference in rectification.

Conclusion: The rejection of the rectification application was upheld and the challenge to the levy failed.

---