Allowing the reference application of the assessee the Court held that   the Tribunal was wrong in allowing the rectification application filed by the Department on the basis of a decision rendered subsequent to the order that was sought to be rectified. The reasoning of the Tribunal was erroneous. A decision taken subsequently in another case was not part of the record of the case. A subsequent decision, subsequent change of law, or subsequent wisdom that dawned upon the Tribunal, were not matters that would come within the scope of “mistake apparent from the record” before the Tribunal. The Tribunal had not found that there was any mistake in the earlier order apparent from the record warranting a rectification. The only reason mentioned was that there was a contradiction in the orders passed and no rectification application had been filed by the assessee in the subsequent case. The satisfaction of the Tribunal about the existence of a mistake apparent on the record was absent. The Department’s further contention was for the proposition that the reason for filing the rectification application was on account of the omission of the Tribunal to consider the Explanation to section 271(1) (as it then stood). Even though the order of rectification issued by the Tribunal did not refer to any such contention having been raised, such contention had no basis. Penalty was levied under section 271(1)(c)(i)(a) (as it then stood), while the Explanation applied to the cases covered by section 271(1)(c)(i)(b) (as it then stood). In such view also the rectification application filed by the Department could not have been allowed by the Tribunal. Relied on Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale (1960) AIR 1960 SC 137. (AY.1982-83)