assessee has filed this miscellaneous application dt. 16th Aug., 1983 which was received by this office on 18th Aug., 1983. It is submitted by assessee that reference application was filed on 31st Jan., 1975 under s. 256(1) of IT Act in respect of four questions. One of questions sought to be referred was "whether on facts and circumstances involved, cost of loom hours archaised by assessee amounting to Rs. 3,25,309 was capital expenditure." Tribunal by its order dt. 14th April, 1975 was of view that in pursuance of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of CIT vs. Maheshwari Devi Jute Mills Ltd. (1965) 57 ITR 36 (SC), which had been followed by Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of CIT vs. Empire Jute Co. Ltd. (1974) 97 ITR 581 (Cal), question was of academic nature and accordingly, reference was rejected. It is also submitted that in view of above two judgments and also in view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mathura Prasad vs. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 428 (SC), referred to at para 9 of order of Tribunal, assessee became satisfied that above sum spent for purchase of loom hours was rightly treated by Tribunal as capital expenditure and for that reason, assessee accepted order of Tribunal dt. 14th April, 1975, i.e., order by which reference application under s. 256(1) was rejected. It is further stated in present miscellaneous application that after service of said order dt. 14th April, 1975, assessee was informed that in view of later judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1980) 17 CTR (SC) 113: (1980) 124 ITR 1 (SC), said sum of Rs.3,25,309 should have been allowed as Revenue expenditure. It is also case of assessee that law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court is law of land. It is, therefore, submitted by assessee that though no express power has been vested in Tribunal so as to implement law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in some other case even beyond time of rectification of its order laid down in s. 254(2), assessee has been advised that where there is lacuna in law which produces whole-some result of tax being collected by State even though it is not leviable by authority of law, then Tribunal has inherent power to Act so as to ensure that no injustice is done to anybody. It this connection, reliance is placed on decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of Alipurduar Tea Co. Ltd. vs. Agrl. ITO & Ors. 1976 CTR (Cal) 350 " (1978) 112 ITR 878 (Cal). It is, therefore, prayed for by assessee that inherent power mentioned above should be exercised by Tribunal and direction may be given to ITO to treat expenditure incurred on purchase of loom hours as allowable expenditure. It is submitted by assessee's ld. counsel before us that in view of facts narrated briefly above, Tribunal would be justified in law in exercising its power under s. 256(2) in allowing claim in spite of fact that assessee's references on point have already been rejected earlier. It is admitted by assessee's ld. counsel that under provisions of s. 254(2), period of four years have already been expired. But it is urged that in view of lacuna in law, Tribunal would be justified to take appropriate action to ensure that justice is done, in light of decision of Hon'ble High Court in case of Alipurduar Tea Co. Ltd. (Supra). It is also urged by assessee's ld. counsel that should there be any difficulty in conceding to assessee's present miscellaneous application, matter may be placed before larger Bench. In brief, it is urged that present miscellaneous application of assessee may be allowed. ld. Departmental representative resists submissions made on behalf of assessee, stating that there is no apparent mistake in order of Tribunal dt. 14th April, 1975, which calls for any rectification, as alleged. It is further stated that time limit prescribed under s. 254(2) has already expired and, therefore, miscellaneous application of assessee cannot be entertained. We have perused order of Tribunal and other papers placed before u s for our consideration. We have also gone through case laws cited and relied on by assessee's ld. counsel in present miscellaneous application. At outset, it may be mentioned that s. 254(2) provides that Tribunal may at any time within four years from date of order, with view to rectifying any mistake apparent from record, amend any order passed by it under sub- s(1), and shall make such amendment if mistake is brought to its notice by assessee or ITO. From plain reading of s. 254(2), it is very clear that Tribunal can rectify any mistake which is apparent on record. From brief narration of facts and background of case, as stated above, it can be seen that there was no mistake apparent from record which would justify Tribunal to Act, as prayed for, by assessee in present application. To repeat, Tribunal following decision in case of Maheshwari Devi Jute Mills Ltd. (Supra) and as well as decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. (1974) 97 ITR 581 (Cal), disallowed claim of assessee to effect that expenditure incurred in purchase of loom hours was not Revenue in character. In fact, as stated by assessee in miscellaneous application, assessee applied for reference of question under s. 256(1) whether he cost of loom hours purchased by assessee was capital expenditure. Tribunal vide its order dt. 14th April, 1975, declined to refer question having regard to decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Mathura Prasad (1966) 60 ITR 428 (SC) in which inter alia it was held that Tribunal is entitled to reject application for reference, if question of law, even though arising from its order, is academic or concluded by judgment of highest Court. Actually, assessee accepted order of Tribunal dt. 14th April, 1975 by which reference application was rejected. From brief narration above, it can be seen that there was no mistake apparent from record in respect of order of Tribunal dt. 14th April, 1975. Again, s. 254(2) prescribes period of four years from date of order within which rectification of any mistake apparent from record can be made by Tribunal. Admittedly, present miscellaneous application dt. 16th Aug., 1983 received in this office on 18th Aug., 1983 was beyond time limit prescribed. Thus, even at time when miscellaneous application was filed, prescribed. Thus, even at time when miscellaneous application was filed, i.e. 18th Aug., 1983 period of four years had already elapsed. Therefore, Tribunal would not be acting within provisions of law, if it rectifies any order beyond prescribed period as provided under s. 254(2). In this connection, it would be necessary to refer to another decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of IAC of Agrl. IT & ST (Spl.) & Anr. vs. V.M. Ravi Namboodiripad (1974) 96 ITR 73 (SC), in which matter was remanded to High Court for deciding whether order of rectification on facts of that case, fall within period prescribed in s. 36. It is, therefore, necessary that any order of rectification should be within period prescribed under relevant statute. Having regard to facts of case as available on record and having regard to contentions made before us, we find that since order of Tribunal was passed on 14th April, 1975, it would not be acting in accordance with law if it concedes to contentions made in present miscellaneous application filed by assessee, in view of fact that there was no apparent mistake on record and that too after limitation period of four years have already expired. otter aspect of contention of assessee is that by its later judgment, in case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. (1980) 17 CTR (SC) 113: (1980) 124 ITR 1 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was of view that purchase of loom hours was of Revenue expenditure and, therefore, claim of as that in view of this later judgment, expenditure incurred by assessee amounted to Rs. 3,25,309, should now be allowed as Revenue expenditure. At first instance, it may be noted here that assessee accepted order of Tribunal dt. 14th April, 1975, rejecting its application for reference in respect of above question under s. 256(1). In our view, matter become final as far as present assessee is concerned. In this connection, we may refer to provisions of s. 254(4) of IT Act which stipulates that order of Tribunal shall be final, when there is no reference under s. 256(1). That apart, decision as reported in (1980) 17 CTR (SC) 113: (1980) 124 ITR 1 (SC) (supra) related to case of another assessee. Moreover, decision in case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. (Supra) was rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 9th May, 1980, i.e. after Tribunal passed t h e order on 14th April 1975 relating to reference application of assessee. order of Tribunal in appeal preferred by assessee had been passed much earlier on 11th Oct., 1974. It is pertinent to mention at this stage that Hon'ble High Court in case of Jiyajee Rao Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. ITO & Ors. (1981) 130 ITR 710 (Cal) inter alia has held on facts of that case that principle of retrospective legislation is not applicable to decisions of Supreme Court declaring law or interpreting provision in statute. law is laid down or provision in statute is interpreted by Supreme Court only when there is debate or doubt on interpretation of any provision of statute. In view of this position in law, we are unable to agree with contention of assessee in present miscellaneous application that in view of later judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. (1980) 17 CTR (SC) 113: (1980) 124 ITR 1 (SC), cost of purchase of loom hours should be allowed now as Revenue expenditure, although in appeal on point, Tribunal vide its order dt. 11th Oct., 1974, has treated above expenditure as capital. In slightly different situation, Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in case of CIT vs. Smt. Eva Raha (1980) 121 ITR 293 (Gau) held that it was true that when orders were passed by Tribunal, such orders were made in accordance with law as it then stood. But s. 13 of Amendment Act provides that amendment made in section shall be substituted and shall be deemed always to have been substituted in Principal Act. Hon'ble High Court was of view that resultant effect of retrospective effect given to t h e amendment is to authorise or to make it obligatory on authorities concerned to revise their order in light of amendment and authority or obligation is unlimited. However, it cannot exercise its power under s. 254 (2) beyond period of four years from date of his order. It was also observed on facets of that case that though orders which had been rendered by Tribunal were good and valid when they were so rendered, they became patently invalid and wrong by virtue of retrospective operation of amendment and, therefore, when application for rectification was made within period of limitation prescribed under s. 254(2), it was held that Tribunal had power to rectify under s. 254(2). In other words, application for rectification and that too as result of retrospective amendment, would have to made within time limit. Similarly is view of Hon'ble High Court in case of CIT vs. Kelvin Jute Co. Ltd. (1980) 17 CTR (Cal) 138: (1980) 126 ITR 679 (Cal), in which it was held that amplitude of expression "any order " in s. 254(2), includes final order disposing of appeal. In present case before us, final order disposing of appeal by assessee was rendered on 11th Oct., 1974. assessee while making this miscellaneous application relies on decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of Alipurduar Tea Co. (Supra). We have gone through facts of that case and we are of opinion that facts of present case before us are distinguishable with thecae of Alipurduar Tea Co. (Supra), in which assessment under Bengal Agricultural IT Act was made on basis of assessment made under previsions of Central IT Act. There were some appeals under Central IT Act, which as result, reduced assessed income of assessee. assessee sought for rectification of assessment under Bengal Agricultural IT Act, which was rejected by assessing authority. appeal to Asstt. Commr. of Agrl. IT was rejected. revision petition was preferred before Commr. of Agrl. IT, which remained undisputed of. assessee filed Writ Petition. On facts of that case, it was held that there is lacuna in Act in that there is no power in Agree. ITO to revise his order where Appellate order of income-tax assessment, is made more than four years after date of original assessment. It was held that scheme of fiscal statutes should be looked at from that point of view that in case of injustice, Court t should ensure that such injustice is rectified as far as practicable unless same is contrary to expressed legislative intent. It was, therefore directed that Commr. of Agrl,. IT should use his revision power and dispose of pending application before him b directing Agrl. ITO to recompute agricultural income-tax payable on basis of appellate order passed under Central IT Act. It may be noted here that above direction was given by Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition and that too in case of assessee itself which assessment was subjected to appellate jurisdiction of different authorities of Central IT Act. That apart, in present case before us, there was no matter or petition pending before Tribunal for disposal at relevant point of time. As indicated elsewhere in this order, assessee had accepted decision of Tribunal dt. 14th April, 1975 by which Tribunal had rejected reference application on point as preferred b assessee under s. 256(1). In this connection, it would be appropriate to refer to decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Maharana Mills (P) Ltd. ITO (1959) 36 ITR 350 (SC), in which it was held that power under s. 35 of IT Act (1922 Act) is limited to rectification of mistakes which are apparent from record and not mistake which is to be discovered as result of argument. Similarly, Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken same view in case of T.S. Balaram, ITO vs. Volkart Bros. & Ors. (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC), in which it was held, inter alia, that mistake apparent on record must be obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivable two opinions. As noted earlier, assessee's ld. counsel submits that should there be any difficulty in conceding to assessee's present miscellaneous application, matter may be placed before larger Bench. We have carefully considered this part of submissions of assessee's ld. Counsel. facts of case as discussed earlier are quite clear. Similarly, provisions of s. 254(2) also are quite clear and contain no ambiguity, keeping in mind ratio of decisions discussed by us above. In this view of matter, we find no difficulty in disposing of miscellaneous application of assessee on points dealt with by us above. From whatever angle we may look at, we find that present miscellaneous application of assessee cannot be accepted in view of background and facts of case as discussed by us in preceding paragraphs. Accordingly, we cannot concede to assessee's request. In result, miscellaneous application of assessee is reject. *** SOORAJMULL NAGARMULL v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX