SHIVASHANKAR BHAT, J. ( 1 ) THE following question of law is referred under Section 256 (2) of the Income Tax Act:"whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in invoking the provisions of Section 254 (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?" ( 2 ) THE history of the case is more cumber some, while the question of law referred is quitesimple. ( 3 ) IN an earlier proceedings, this Court held that the income from the building held by the assessees as co-owners, should be assessed in the hands of the assessees individually according to their respective shares; however, in respect of the income from letting of the air-conditioning plant, same was to be assessed as the income of association of persons, (for short A. O. P.) ( 4 ) IN the meanwhile there were several consequential proceedings before the Income Tax Officer, and ultimately, the revenue invoked the jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal to rectify its order, so that, an appropriate assessment could be made under Section 86 (v) of the Act, against the assessees, individually. For this purpose Section 254 (2) was invoked, on the ground that there is a mistake apparent from the record, inasmuch as, assessees being members of A. O. P. , the share of each assessee in the income of the a. O. P. has to be computed as provided under section 86 (v ). This was to be done, in consequence of the decision of this Court in the earlier references, read with certain clarification given by the Court, by virtue of a decision rendered earlier in W. P. No. 5985 of 1974. ( 5 ) THE assessees contended that there was no mistake apparent from record, which alone empowers the Tribunal to rectify its earlier order; in this regard two aspects were relied: (1) The rectification is sought by virtue of a subsequent decision of High Court and the decision involves elaborate arguments and investigation of facts. (2) The Tribunal cannot travel beyond its own record pertaining to each of the assessees. ( 6 ) QUESTION of elaborate argument or investigation of fact actually does not arise here. (2) The Tribunal cannot travel beyond its own record pertaining to each of the assessees. ( 6 ) QUESTION of elaborate argument or investigation of fact actually does not arise here. The identification of the effect of the law applicable to the assessees and the A. O. P. , as decided by this Court on the earlier occasion, does not involve any complicated or elaborate reasoning; to the proved facts, the law has to be applied and even then, no difficulty arises having regard to the clear language of Section 86 (v ). ( 7 ) THE assessees are also not right in contending that the Tribunal is confined to the actual record before it and it cannot refer to the supplemental or complementary proceedings as if the proceedings pertaining to the assessees individually should be considered in isolation from the proceedings pertaining to A. O. P. From the admitted facts, it is clear that both proceedings are closely connected and were interdependent. ( 8 ) THE width of the concept of "mistake apparent from the record" can be understood by referring to three decisions. In 36 ITR 350 (Maharna Mills (Private) Ltd. v Income Tax Officer, Porbandar) the Supreme court held that record does not mean only the order of assessment but "it comprises all proceedings on which the assessment order is based" and that while exercising the power of rectification whole evidence and the law applicable there to can be looked into. In 174 ITR 579 (Kil Kotagri Tea and Coffee estates Co. Ltd. v Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and Others) the Kerala High Court had to consider whether law interpreted and declared by the High Court can be the basis to invoke the power of rectification. The High Court pointed out that while interpreting the law, the Court does not make the law, but declares its meaning which is always deemed as the meaning that existed even earlier and therefore, the revenue can rectify the mistake by reference to the subsequent declaration of the law. The Bench held thus at page 584:"an order of assessment based upon an inter pretation or application of law which is ultimately found to be wrong in the light of judicial pronouncements rendered subsequently, discloses a mistake apparent from the record. The Bench held thus at page 584:"an order of assessment based upon an inter pretation or application of law which is ultimately found to be wrong in the light of judicial pronouncements rendered subsequently, discloses a mistake apparent from the record. When the Court decides a matter, it does not make the law in any sense but all it does is that it interprets the law and states what the law has always been and must be understood to have been. Where an order is made by an authority, on the basis of a particular decision, the reversal of such decision in further proceedings will justify a rectification of the order based on that decision. "again at page 585:"a binding decision rendered by a Court is always retrospective and the decision which is overruled was never the law. The overruling decision should be deemed to have been in force even on the day when the order sought to be rectified was passed. We are further of the view that the Appellate Tribunal was in error in holding that the subsequent decision of the High Court has no retrospective operation as in the case of subsequent legislation or the decision of the Supreme Court. A subsequent binding decision of the Supreme Court or of the high Court has retrospective operation and overruling is always retrospective. "in 160 ITR 840 (Commissioner of Income tax, Delhi VIII v Shakuntala Rajeshwar), the delhi High Court had to consider almost an analogous case on facts and in connection with the scope of power of rectification held that when earlier order of the Tribunal was founded on a mistaken assumption and the error is discovered, power under Section 254 (2) can be invoked. The very basis of the earlier order required rectification ( 9 ) IN view of the foregoing, we have no he sitation to answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the assessees. References answered accordingly. --- *** --- .