This miscellaneous application has been filed by assessee against order dt. 28th Oct., 2005 of Tribunal in ITA No. 1988/Del/2001. assessee has requested rectification of order pointing out certain apparent mistakes in relation to disallowance of orphan claims which had been upheld by Tribunal. facts of case in brief are that assessee for relevant year had claimed deduction of Rs. 27.55 crores debited in P&L a/c as provision in respect of 1/3rd of total estimated liability relating to unidentified claims known as orphan claims. In respect of such liabilities, assessee had received only Court summons, which did not contain adequate policy particulars so as to establish that claim related to assessee company. provision for 1/3rd total such liabilities had been made purely on estimate. assessee had claimed that these liabilities had arisen during year and deduction was allowable even if liabilities were to be quantified and discharged at later date in view of judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Bharat Earth Movers vs. CIT (2000) 162 CTR (SC) 325: (2000) 245 ITR 428 (SC). It was also submitted that allowability of liability was covered by judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of General Insurance Corporation of India vs. CIT (1999) 156 CTR (SC) 425: (1999) 240 ITR 139 (SC). Tribunal in its order dt. 28th Oct., 2005 had duly considered these judgments and held that these were not applicable to facts of case and accordingly upheld disallowance made by authorities below. Tribunal, while dismissing appeal of assessee had pointed out that judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Bharat Earth Movers (supra), applied only when incurring of liabilities was certain. In this case, incurring of liabilities was not certain. There was no material to establish that these orphan claims even related to assessee. liabilities were only probable. As regards case of General Insurance Corpn. of India (supra) Tribunal noted that same related to provisions made towards redemption of preference shares which was allowable as deduction under r. 2(2)(a) of SIB Rules. But profit q of corporation for IT Act was to be computed under r. 5(a) of Part B of First Schedule which is reproduced below: "5. Computation of profits and gains of any business or insurance other than life insurance business shall be taken to be balance of profit disclosed by annual accounts copies of which are required under Insurance Act, 1938 (4 of 1948) to be furnished to Controller of Insurance subject to following adjustments: (a) Subject to other provisions of this rule, any expenditure or allowance which is not admissible under provisions of ss. 30 to 43A in computing profits and gains of business shall be added." Hon ble Supreme Court in case of General Insurance Corpn. of India (supra) held that provision in respect of redemption of preference shares was expenditure only for purpose of Insurance Act and not for purpose of IT Act. For expenditure to be allowable under provisions of IT Act, 1961, it should be towards liability existing at that time. As there was no existing liability, it was not expenditure for purpose of IT Act. Hon ble Supreme Court also observed that it was not expenditure or allowance covered by ss. 30 to 43A. Tribunal distinguished said case on ground that provision in that case was in respect of liability towards, redemption of preference shares which was on capital account and therefore it was not expenditure or allowance contemplated under provisions of ss. 30 to 43A. case of assessee was different. In this case, provisions related to claim against insurance policies, which were on revenue account and were definitely expenditure/allowance contemplated under provisions of those sections. However, same was not allowable as provisions was in relation to liabilities incurring of which during year was not certain. provisions in relation to any expenditure incurring of which during year is not certain, is definitely not admissible as deduction under provisions of ss. 30 to 43A. This issue is settled by judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Bharat Earth Movers (supra), in which it was held that for allowance of business liability under IT Act, 1961, incurring of liability must be certain. As provision in relation to orphan claims was not admissible under provisions of ss. 30 to 43A, Tribunal held that same had to be added to profit of business under r. 5(a) of Part B of First Schedule. assessee has filed present miscellaneous application against aforesaid decision of Tribunal pointing out that decision is contrary to judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of General Insurance Corpn. of India (supra) and, therefore, constitutes mistake apparent from record. finding of Tribunal that judgment in case of General Insurance Corpn. of India (supra) is distinguishable is apparent mistake. Before us, learned Authorised Representative for assessee Shri M.S. Syali argued that Tribunal in its order dt. 28th Oct., 2005 had itself held that incurring of liabilities was not certain and therefore, provision was not expenditure as held by Hon ble Supreme Court in case of General Insurance Corpn. of India (supra). As it was not expenditure, question of determining its admissibility with reference to r. 5(a) of Part B of First Schedule did not arise as held by Hon ble Supreme Court in said case. There was therefore, error in order of Tribunal which needed to be rectified. learned senior Departmental Representative, on other hand, pointed out that Tribunal had duly considered both judgments of Hon ble Supreme Court had decided issue by way of speaking order. There was therefore, no apparent error which could be rectified. Tribunal had no power to review its own orders. We have perused records and considered rival contentions carefully. assessee during hearing of main appeal had relied on judgments of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Bharat Earth Movers (supra) and in case of General Insurance Corpn. of India (supra). Tribunal had considered both judgments and found of no help to case of assessee. judgment in case of Bharat Earth Movers (supra) was not applicable as incurring of liability on account of orphan claims was not certain during year. judgment in case of General Insurance Corpn. of India (supra) was also found distinguishable as same related to provision for redemption of preference shares. provision towards redemption of preference shares is on capital account and is therefore not of nature of expenditure/allowance contemplated under ss. 30 to 43A. It was because of this reason that Hon ble Supreme Court observed that provision for redemption of preference shares was also not expenditure or allowance of nature covered under ss. 30 to 43A of IT Act, 1961. This is not so in case of assessee. 43A of IT Act, 1961. This is not so in case of assessee. provisions towards any liability in respect of any insurance claim, is normal expenditure or allowance contemplated under ss. 30 to 43A. Though it is true that it will not be item of expenditure as liability was not existing, but definitely it will be covered under term allowance . word allowance mentioned in r. 5(a) also includes provisions which are not admissible under provisions of ss. 30 to 43A. This position has been made clear by amendment made by Finance Act, 1998 to r. 5(a) in which it has been mentioned that allowance includes provision for tax, dividend, reserve or any other provision as may be prescribed. It is well-settled legal position by judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Bharat Earth Movers (supra) that in respect of any business liability, provision is allowable as deduction only when incurring of liability during year is certain. As incurring of liability in relation to orphan claims was not certain during year, provisions are not allowable as deduction under ss. 30 to 43A. Therefore, in terms of r. 5(a), these are to be added to profit computed under provisions of Insurance Act. Though word allowance was omitted to be mentioned along with word expenditure , it is obvious that Tribunal had discussed issue in relation to expenditure/allowance as both are covered under r. 5(a). In so far as decision of Tribunal regarding non applicability of judgments (supra) of Hon ble Supreme Court is concerned, we find that there is no mistake in order of Tribunal holding that said judgments were distinguishable and not applicable to facts of case. Tribunal had given reasons for same. There is, therefore, no apparent error which needs to be rectified and request for rectification is accordingly rejected. In result, miscellaneous application filed by assessee stands rejected. *** ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX