Judgment :- N.V.BALASUBRAMANIAN, J. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, in pursuance of the directions of this Court has stated a case and referred the following questions of law in relation to the assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1985-86. 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that there is no error apparent on the face of records? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in declining to remand the matter to the assessing authority affording an opportunity to the applicant to prove the source of income? 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the tax case reference are as under:- The assessee is the wife of a senior advocate practising in this Court. There were three assessments made, one on the assessee's husband in his individual capacity, another in the name of the assessee's husband as Kartha of the joint family and the third on the assessee. The assessments were made consequent to a search in the residential premises of the assessee and her husband in the year 1986 and the question that arose in all assessment proceedings was regarding the assessability of a sum of Rs.85,000/- which represents the money advanced in a promissory note standing in the name of the assessee, Mrs.Visalakshi Gandhi, and in whose hands the same has to be assessed. The assessment on the assessee's husband was made on regular basis including the said sum in his assessment and other two assessments, one on the husband of the assessee as Kartha of the Hindu Undivided family and the other on the assessee, were made including the same amount on a protective basis. All the three assessees preferred separate appeals before the appellate authority, viz., Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). and the Commissioner of Income-tax respectively. In the appeal preferred by the Hindu Undivided family, the case of the Hindu Undivided family was that the said sum had come out of agricultural income of the Hindu Undivided family and it was accepted by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the other two appeals were decided in the light of order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) in the case of the Hindu Undivided family. 3. Accordingly, the other two appeals were decided in the light of order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) in the case of the Hindu Undivided family. 3. The department carried all the three matters in appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal found that at the time of search, the assessee's husband has given a statement to the effect that the money was advanced by his wife and the assessee's husband disowned the same in his individual capacity as well as as the Kartha of the Hindu Undivided family. The Appellate Tribunal also found that nearly after one month from the date of search, the assessee gave a sworn statement accepting that she advanced the money out of her own money. The assessee also explained the sources for the amount; (i) out of her savings and (ii) out of the money received from a firm in which she was a partner. The Appellate Tribunal considered all the three appeals together and took note of the fact that the extent of income shown by the joint family against the extent of the lands appeared to be disproportionate, and observed that the assessee did not give any details regarding the nature of crops that were raised. The Appellate Tribunal therefore held that in the absence of details, the appellate authority, viz., the Deputy Commissioner (appeals) was not justified in taking the view that the assessee, viz., the Hindu Undivided family had sufficient income and sufficient funds at its disposal to advance money to third parties. The Appellate Tribunal, taking note of the statements made by the assessee's husband and by the assessee and also the fact that revised returns were filed declaring that the amount advanced came out of the agricultural income after a long delay, came to the conclusion that it was an after-th0ught to cover up the situation. The Appellate Tribunal therefore set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner (appeals) wherein it was held that the income belonged to the Hindu Undivided family. The Appellate Tribunal, however, on the basis of the statement made by the assessee as well as by her husband, came to the conclusion that the money was rightly assessed in the hands of the assessee. The Appellate Tribunal, however, on the basis of the statement made by the assessee as well as by her husband, came to the conclusion that the money was rightly assessed in the hands of the assessee. The Appellate Tribunal also took note of the fact that the revised returns were filed on behalf of the Hindu Undivided family declaring huge agricultural income not only for the assessment year 1985-86, but also for the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85, unrelated to the extent of the lands owned, and held that the amount advanced belonged to the assessee. In this view of the matter, the Appellate Tribunal directed that the amount should be computed in the hands of the assessee, and deleted the additions made in the assessments of the assessee's husband both in his individual capacity as well as the Kartha of the Hindu Undivided family. Accordingly, the Appellate Tribunal disposed of all the appeals. 4. The assessee thereafter filed a petition under section 254 (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for rectification of 'the mistake apparent from the record' in the order of the Appellate Tribunal and to cancel the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal and to remand the matter back to the assessing authority for giving the petitioner an opportunity to show-cause against the assessment of the amount as the undisclosed income of the petitioner or in the alternative, the petitioner should be given a sufficient opportunity before the Appellate Tribunal itself in that regard. The Appellate Tribunal held that though the assessee filed the petition for rectification seeking an opportunity of being heard either by the Appellate Tribunal or by the lower authority, yet, a reading of the affidavit filed by the assessee did not show what was the mistake apparent from the record. The Appellate Tribunal also found that the assessee never claimed before the Appellate Tribunal any opportunity to be given for the production of materials in support of her case. The Appellate Tribunal held that the matter was disposed of on available materials on record and hence, the prayer sought for in the miscellaneous petition cannot be granted as there was no error apparent from the record. It is, against the order rejecting the petition for rectification, the present reference has been made, at the instance of the assessee, on the basis of the directions of this Court. 5. It is, against the order rejecting the petition for rectification, the present reference has been made, at the instance of the assessee, on the basis of the directions of this Court. 5. We heard Mr.P.P.S.Janarthana Raja, learned counsel for the assessee and Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned junior standing counsel for the Revenue. The submission of Mr.P.P.S.Janarthana Raja, learned counsel was that the observation of the Appellate Tribunal that the extent of income shown against the extent of the lands appeared to be disproportionate is not correct as the assessee had produced all the materials and the materials do show the extent of the lands owned by the Hindu Undivided family and the nature of the crops, namely, sugarcane and hence, all the materials were available on record, but the Appellate Tribunal failed to consider the materials at the time of disposal of the appeal. He also submitted that the assessee's husband is a leading senior advocate of this Court and the Appellate Tribunal should have considered that it would have been fairly easy for him to give periodically a portion of his income to the assessee and hence, the Appellate Tribunal should be directed to consider the petition on merits. 6. We are unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the assessee. It must be remembered here that there were three assessments, one in the hands of the assessee, another in the hands of the assessee's husband in his individual capacity and the third in the hands of the Hindu Undivided family. The Appellate Tribunal considered the question whether the Hindu Undivided family would have sufficient resources to advance the money covered in the promissory note in the appeal filed in the case of Hindu Undivided family and held that the Hindu Undivided family had no sufficient funds at its disposal to advance loans to third parties. Therefore it is not open to the assessee to challenge the finding rendered in the appeal relating to the Hindu Undivided family in the petition for rectification filed in her individual case. Therefore it is not open to the assessee to challenge the finding rendered in the appeal relating to the Hindu Undivided family in the petition for rectification filed in her individual case. We are of the view that by the miscellaneous petition preferred to rectify the mistake in the order passed in the assessee's appeal, it is not open to her to contend to set aside the finding rendered in another assessee's case, namely, Hindu Undivided family, though she might be a member of the joint family and all the appeals were heard together. Secondly, the appellate Tribunal observed that the Hindu Undivided family did not give any details regarding the nature of crops that were raised and the extent of income shown against the extent of the lands appeared to be disproportionate. These are all pure factual findings and it cannot be stated that there is a mistake apparent from the record in the finding of the Appellate Tribunal. Moreover, the statement given by the assessee after a period of nearly one month from the date of search accepting that the money was advanced by her was never retracted, nor the assessee's husband retracted his statement given earlier during the course of search. Moreover, the plea that the assessee's husband was periodically giving a portion of his income to the assessee was not advanced either before the Appellate Tribunal, nor any material was produced. 7. The expression, 'mistake apparent from the record' has been subject matter of several decisions of the Supreme Court and it is well-settled that for a 'mistake apparent from the record' it must not involve a detailed inquiry and where more than one plausible view is possible, it cannot be regarded as a mistake apparent from the record. We are of the view that the finding of the Appellate Tribunal that the Hindu Undivided family did not give details regarding the details or the nature of crops or the fact that the extent of income shown against the extent of the lands appeared to be disproportionate does not give rise to a 'mistake apparent from the record' as more than one view is possible. It is true that we are not concerned with the correctness of the earlier order of the Appellate Tribunal, nor we are concerned with the reasonings given by the Appellate Tribunal for the conclusion it arrived at earlier as we are not sitting either in appeal or considering a reference against the earlier order of the Appellate Tribunal. 8. Further, the assessee in her petition has also not stated that there were certain glaring mistakes in the order of the Appellate Tribunal calling for rectification. As a matter of fact, it was found that the assessee had not pointed out any mistake in the order of the Appellate Tribunal. The petition filed by her clearly shows that the assessee sought for the remand of the matter back to the appellate authority or the assessing officer to show-cause against the assessment of the amount as her undisclosed income. In the alternative, she pleaded that the assessee should be given an opportunity in the Appellate Tribunal itself. The prayer sought for implies that the assessee has not produced materials either at the time of appeal and she wanted an opportunity to place fresh materials before the assessing officer or the appellate authority or the Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be and hence, that would not constitute a mistake apparent from the record. The assessee could have asked for more time at the time of hearing of the appeal to assemble all available evidence and to produce the same, if the time was needed. The assessee had not done that, and it is not open to the assessee to complain in the rectification proceedings that the matter should be remitted. We therefore hold that the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that seeking an opportunity to be heard either by the Appellate Tribunal or to remit the matter to the lower authorities does not give rise to a mistake apparent from the record. It is not the case of the assessee that she sought an opportunity before the Appellate Tribunal at the time of hearing of appeal to produce certain materials which was denied by the Appellate Tribunal. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that there was no error apparent from the record which called for rectification of its order. 9. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that there was no error apparent from the record which called for rectification of its order. 9. Accordingly, we answer the questions of law referred to us as under:- First question: We answer the question in the affirmative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. Second question: We also answer the question in the affirmative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue as the Appellate Tribunal was right in declining the request of the assessee to remand the matter while considering the petition for rectification. The prayer for remand should have been made at the time of passing of the original order in the appeal and the assessee has not taken any further step against that order by filing a reference application and in the rectification petition, it is not open to the assessee to claim that the Appellate Tribunal should remit the matter back to the assessing authority or the appellate authority or a further opportunity should be given to the assessee in the Appellate Tribunal. In the result, both the questions of law referred to us are answered against the assessee, in favour of the Revenue. However, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.