JUDGMENT : Akil Kureshi, J. The petitioner has challenged an order dated 4.10.2013 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal' for short) in a Misc. Application No.11/Rjt/2012 filed by the respondent Income-tax Department. Relevant facts may be noted at the outset :- 2. The petitioner is a private limited company. The petitioner company was subjected to search operations carried out in December, 1996. One Shri M. N. Patel was the Director of the Company. He was also subjected to search during the same period. During the search carried out at the premises of Shri M. N. Patel certain loose papers were seized by the Department. Assessment under Section 158BC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) was carried out in case of petitioner as well as Shri M. N. Patel for the block period. Assessment of total income of Rs. 3.06 (rounded off) was made. This included a sum of Rs. 2,27,41,125/- (rounded of Rs. 2.27 crores) on the basis of loose papers seized by the Department, on substantive basis in the hands of the petitioner Company and on protective basis in the hands of Shri M. N. Patel. 3. The Company as well as Shri M. N. Patel challenged such assessment before the Tribunal. The Tribunal passed an order on 20.6.2000 in case of the company and deleted the addition in the hands of the company while making observations touching the liability of Shri M. N. Patel in this regard. Aggrieved by such judgment and order of the Tribunal Shri M. N. Patel approached the High Court. The High Court allowed the petition of Shri M. N. Patel by judgment dated 17.4.2001 and requested the Tribunal to hear both appeals simultaneously. The Tribunal thereupon decided the appeals of the company as well as Shri M. N. Patel by common order dated 10.10.2001 and restored entire issue back before the Assessing Officer. In the fresh assessments the Assessing Officer on or around 31.3.2013 taxed the income in hands of Shri M. N. Patel on substantive basis and in the hands of the company on protective basis. Again two appeals came to be filed before the Tribunal. These two appeals were disposed of by Tribunal by common order dated 29.7.2011. The Tribunal held that Shri M. N. Patel had only 6.25% share of the profit of the company and therefore confirmed the addition of Rs. Again two appeals came to be filed before the Tribunal. These two appeals were disposed of by Tribunal by common order dated 29.7.2011. The Tribunal held that Shri M. N. Patel had only 6.25% share of the profit of the company and therefore confirmed the addition of Rs. 13.53 lacs (rounded off) out of the total additions of Rs. 2.27 crores of unaccounted income. In so far as company is concerned, the Tribunal was of the opinion that the Assessing Officer had not made any investigation and collected any evidence to tax the company concerning the remaining amount. The Tribunal therefore deleted the protective assessment in case of the company. 4. Aggrieved by this order of the Tribunal dated 29.7.2011 the Revenue had filed two appeals before the High Court. The Revenue's Tax Appeal No.41 of 2012 against Shri M. N. Patel came to be dismissed by the High Court by an order dated 18.3.2013. The Revenue's Tax Appeal No.42 of 2012 against the company has been admitted and is pending for final hearing. 5. On or around 2.3.2012 the Revenue filed an Application No.11 of 2012 before the Tribunal and requested the Tribunal to correct a mistake which according to Revenue had crept in the order disposing of the appeals so far as not deciding the question of remaining part of the profit of 93.75% of Rs. 2.16 crores (rounded off), whether the same has to be brought to the tax and if yes, in whose hands on substantive basis. The Tribunal allowed such application by impugned order dated 4.10.2013. The Tribunal was of the opinion that such remaining amount of Rs. 2.16 crores could be taxed in the hands of the company. The Revenue's Misc. Application was accordingly allowed. The company has thereupon filed present petition challenging the said order of Tribunal. 6. Appearing for the petitioner learned counsel Shri Soparkar raised following contentions : (i) The Misc. Application for rectification filed by the Department was in the appeal concerning Shri M. N. Patel. There was no request of the Department to correct the order of the Tribunal concerning the present petitioner company. (ii) In the application for rectification the Revenue failed to point out any error or mistake apparent to record which required rectification. (iii) Against the Tribunal's order concerning the petitioner company the Revenue had already filed tax appeal. There was no request of the Department to correct the order of the Tribunal concerning the present petitioner company. (ii) In the application for rectification the Revenue failed to point out any error or mistake apparent to record which required rectification. (iii) Against the Tribunal's order concerning the petitioner company the Revenue had already filed tax appeal. Such tax appeal was admitted by the High Court. When the High Court was thus in seisin of the issues the Tribunal could not have exercised powers of rectification. In this context reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in case of Commissioner of Income-tax-III vs. Munni Seva Ashram, 2013 38 taxmann.com 110. (iv) Counsel lastly contended that in any case this was not a fit case for exercise of powers of rectification by the Tribunal. While disposing of the tax appeals the Tribunal had examined all relevant aspects of the matter, evaluated the evidence on record and come to certain definite conclusions. In exercise of powers for rectification the issues cannot be re-examined. The power of the Tribunal under Section 254(2) of the Act is to correct an error apparent on record. In this context counsel relied on the following decisions of the Supreme Court. (a) In case of T.S.Balaram, Income-tax Officer vs. Volkart Brothers, (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC). (b) In case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur, Mumbai vs. RDC Concrete (India) Private Limited, (2011) 12 SCC 166 . 7. On the other hand, learned counsel Shri Bhatt for the Department opposed the petition contending that in the original order the Tribunal had come to certain self contradictory conclusions with respect to the sum of Rs. 2.16 crores. If the stand of Shri M. N. Patel that he was owner of only 6.25% of the total amount which was the income of the Company, the remaining 93% of the sum had to be taxed in the hands of the Company. The Tribunal while deleting the protective assessment in the hands of the company, thus committed serious error. Such error when pointed out was corrected by the Tribunal. The Tribunal thereby committed no error. He submitted that merely because the High Court had admitted the Revenue's appeal against the order of the Tribunal, did not prevent the Tribunal from exercising powers of rectification. Such error when pointed out was corrected by the Tribunal. The Tribunal thereby committed no error. He submitted that merely because the High Court had admitted the Revenue's appeal against the order of the Tribunal, did not prevent the Tribunal from exercising powers of rectification. In this context he relied on the judgment of Bombay High Court in case of R. W. Promotions P. Ltd., vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and Ors., (2015) 376 ITR 126. 8. We have recorded skeletal facts. As we go along testing the rival contentions, we would at the relevant time refer to the materials on record in greater detail. In the context of the petitioner's first contention of the Department's Misc. Application being confined to the case of Shri M. N. Patel, the record would suggest that though common application was filed, its title contained reference to both the appeals being IT No.24 of 2003 and IT No.51 of 2003 which related to Shri M. N. Patel and the company respectively. In the memo of the application for rectification there is no further indication that the application was confined to the order of the Tribunal concerning Shri M. N. Patel alone. We may recall the order that the Tribunal has passed in said two appeals was common order. In such application reference was made to the conclusion of the Tribunal that Shri M. N. Patel can be taxed only to the extent of 6.25% of the unaccounted income as his share of profit out of the company's income. Reference was thereafter made to the deletion of the remaining 93.75% even on protective basis in the hands of the company. It was therefore urged that the mistake has crept in the order of the Tribunal in so far as not deciding the rate of remaining part of the profit and 93.75% of the sum as to whether the same has to be brought to tax and if yes in whose hands on substantive basis. 9. In clear terms therefore the Revenue's application for rectification covered both the appeals before the Tribunal. It was not confined to Shri M. N. Patel and for that matter, even to the company. Revenue's stand was simple. The income had to be taxed in the hands of someone. 9. In clear terms therefore the Revenue's application for rectification covered both the appeals before the Tribunal. It was not confined to Shri M. N. Patel and for that matter, even to the company. Revenue's stand was simple. The income had to be taxed in the hands of someone. According to the Revenue, if the Tribunal was of the opinion that Shri M. N. Patel can be taxed only to the extent of 6.25% of the unaccounted income, the Tribunal committed an error in deleting even the protective assessment in the hands of the company to the extent of 93.75% of such sum. This contention of the petitioner is therefore rejected. 10. We also do not find that the application of the Revenue did not disclose grounds on which it urged the Tribunal to rectify the order. The Revenue's ground as noted earlier was that the income had to be taxed in hands of one of the two entities and the Tribunal had therefore committed an error in dissipating such amount altogether from assessment. Whether such ground should have been accepted is a matter presently we will not comment upon. Nevertheless this is not a case where the Revenue's application did not raise a ground in favour of the request made. 11. The next contention of the petitioner is that High Court having admitted the Revenue's tax appeal, the Tribunal ought not to have exercised the powers of rectification. In this context we do not see that the Division Bench of this Court in case of Muni Seva Ashram has laid down any ratio of the kind propounded by the counsel for the petitioner. It was the case in which of course relevant facts were similar as our case. However, the order of the Tribunal exercising power of rectification when the tax appeal against the same order was pending, was set aside on a concession by the counsel for the respondent. This therefore can be seen more of an order which was invited. We notice that Bombay High Court in case of RW Promotions Pvt. Ltd., has held that statutory provisions do not envisage any embargo on the part of the Tribunal in exercising rectification jurisdiction merely because tax appeal is pending before the High Court. This therefore can be seen more of an order which was invited. We notice that Bombay High Court in case of RW Promotions Pvt. Ltd., has held that statutory provisions do not envisage any embargo on the part of the Tribunal in exercising rectification jurisdiction merely because tax appeal is pending before the High Court. In this context the contention of the counsel for the Revenue that it may be a case of self imposed restriction by the Tribunal in a given case, but not a requirement of law, assumes significance. 12. In the present case, however, we do not find it necessary to go so deep in the issue and give our final opinion thereon. This is so because on the fourth and the last contention in our opinion the petitioner would succeed. This was the petitioner's contention on merits of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. This would require some further reference to the material on record. 13. In the original order with respect to this global figure of Rs. 2.27 cores reflected in the loose papers seized from the residence of Shri M. N. Patel, the Tribunal first considered its taxability in the hands of Shri M. N. Patel. In this context the Tribunal observed as under :- "Now coming to second amount which part of total amount Rs. 34,25,000/- which has been sent back to the file of the AO by the ITAT. Shri M. N. Patel while replying to question No.2 in his statement dated 28.3.2003, stated that Rs. 13,53,500/- is 6.25% profit share. This is a share of profit of assessee M. N. Patel from 3-4 projects of Ambica Realities i.e. Yoginagar, Indraprasth, Ambica Project and Raiya Road. The A.O. in original assessment this amount Rs. 13,53,500/- has assessed on protective basis in the hands of assessee M. N. Patel, whereas in fresh assessment order, the A.O. made addition of Rs.2,16,56,000/- being 100% share of profit calculated on the basis of Rs.13,53,500/- profit share of 6.25%. In fresh assessment, this entire 100% amount has been added in the hands of M. N. Patel on substantive basis. The A.O. made this addition in the hands of assessee on substantive basis. It appears that the AO added this amount in compliance to the direction of C.I.T., Rajkot an Addl.. C.I.T. By stating that these directions are statutory and binding nature. The total profit Rs. The A.O. made this addition in the hands of assessee on substantive basis. It appears that the AO added this amount in compliance to the direction of C.I.T., Rajkot an Addl.. C.I.T. By stating that these directions are statutory and binding nature. The total profit Rs. 2,16,56,000/- was taxed on substantive basis as the relevant page No.8 and 10 were found and seized from the premises of the assessee M. N. Patel. It is admitted facts that and as discussed in various para of this order that in spite of availability of the sufficient material, documents and explanation for examinations and investigation by A.O. to put on record the complete facts but he failed to do so. He has also failed to comply with the directions of the ITAT. Further, this 100% profit has been added by A.O. in the hands of the assessee M. N. Patel on the basis of direction which were without examination of the facts of the case. In absence of complete material facts and in absence of complete verification and examination, the 100% amount cannot be added in the hands of assessee M. N. Patel. As regards the share of assessee 6.25% Rs. 13,53,500/- there is no dispute that this profit belongs to the assessee M. N. Patel and to that extent, addition is warranted, we accordingly, confirm the addition to the extent of the assessee's share in profit Rs. 13,53,500/- out of the total addition Rs. 2,16,56,000/-." 14. The Tribunal then addressed the issue of taxability of the remaining amount which was deleted in the hands of Shri M. N. Patel barring the sum of Rs. 13.53 lacs (rounded of) which was confirmed in his hands. In this context the Tribunal observed as under :- "Now, the question is to examine regarding the ownership of balance amount of profit. Though, M. N. Patel has clearly pointed out that his share of 6.25% in various projects of Ambica Realities i.e. Yoginagar Indraprasth, Ambica Project and Raiya Road. The A.O. made substantive addition of Rs. 2,16,56,000/- in the hands of M. N. Patel and protective basis in the hands of the assesee-company Ambica Realities Pvt. Ltd. In spite of important facts pointing out by M.N. Patel that the shares profit 6.25% from various projects of Ambica Realities but the A.O. has not extended the investigation and examination to find out the true facts what Mr. 2,16,56,000/- in the hands of M. N. Patel and protective basis in the hands of the assesee-company Ambica Realities Pvt. Ltd. In spite of important facts pointing out by M.N. Patel that the shares profit 6.25% from various projects of Ambica Realities but the A.O. has not extended the investigation and examination to find out the true facts what Mr. M. N. Patel has said. Except the contention of M. N. Patel, there is no material on record basis on which it can be said that the balance amount of profit belongs to Ambica Realities Pvt. Ltd. In absence of verification and in absence of the complete facts regarding owner of the balance amount of Rs. 2,16,56,000/- the addition cannot be made in the hands of a company. Therefore, same is deleted." 15. The Tribunal thereafter extended its discussion to the assessee company and the protective additions made to the Assessing Officer of the said sum of Rs. 2.27 lacs in the hands of the company. The Tribunal deleted such additions in the hands of the company by making following observations :- "Now coming to the protective additions made in the hands of the assessee-company, Ambica Realities Pvt. Ltd. The A.O. made total addition of Rs. 2,27,41,125/- in original assessment on substantive basis in the hand of the assessee-company Ambica realities Pvt. Ltd. But in fresh assessment, the A.O. made addition of Rs. 2,27,41,125/- on protective basis. This amount Rs. 2,27,41,125/- includes Rs. 10,85,125/- total of page No.8 and Rs. 2,16,56,000/- being balance amount of profit 93.75% calculated on the basis of M. N. Patel's profit share 6.25 of Rs. 13,53,500/- noted on page No.10. As per the discussion made while deciding MN Patel's share profit in above various para we do not find any justification of such addition on protective basis in the hands of assessee-company Ambica Realities Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, same are deleted." 16. From the above noted discussion of the Tribunal's previous order in the tax appeals of Shri M. N. Patel and the company it can be seen that the Tribunal was acutely conscious about three aspects of the matter. (i) Firstly, whether the entire amount of Rs. 2.27 lacs could be stated to be the income of Shri M. N. Patel and could be taxed in his hands. (ii) Having held that only 6.25% of such amount which came to Rs. (i) Firstly, whether the entire amount of Rs. 2.27 lacs could be stated to be the income of Shri M. N. Patel and could be taxed in his hands. (ii) Having held that only 6.25% of such amount which came to Rs. 13.53 lacs could be taxed in the hands of Shri M. N. Patel as part of his share out of the company's profit, what would happen to the rest of the amount and (iii) whether the remaining sum of Rs. 2.16 crores could be taxed in the hands of the company. The Tribunal gave findings on all three aspects. Even after recording that Shri M. N. Patel can be taxed to the tune of Rs. 13.53 lacs of income the Tribunal gave reasons for holding that the remaining amount could not be taxed in hands of the company. Whether this conclusions are correct or incorrect surely the High Court will decide in the Revenue's tax appeal which is already admitted. However, this is not a case where the Tribunal failed to decide an important issue arising in the appeals or that the consideration of the Tribunal suffered from an error apparent on the record. As is well settled the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to rectify its own order is quite narrow and cannot be equated with the power of review which the Tribunal does not possess. Reference in this respect laid on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of RDC Concrete (India) Private Limited in which it was observed as under :- "Upon perusal of both the orders viz. The earlier order dated 4.11.2008 and the order dated 23.11.2009 passed in pursuance of the rectification application, we are of the view that CESTAT exceeded its powers given to it under the provisions of Section 35-C(2) of the Act. This Court has already laid down the law in T.S.Balaram v. Volkart Bros, to the effect that a "mistake apparent from the record" cannot be something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. It has been also held that a decision on a debatable point of law cannot be a mistake apparent from the record. It has been also held that a decision on a debatable point of law cannot be a mistake apparent from the record. If one looks at the subsequent order passed by CESTAT in pursuance of the rectification application, it is very clear that CESTAT reappreicated the evidence and came to a different conclusion than the earlier one." 17. In the result, petition is allowed. Impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside. Nothing stated in this order will prejudice the Revenue in perusing its Tax Appeal No.42 of 2012 which is pending before the High Court for final hearing. Petition is disposed of.