JUDGMENT At request of counsel for both sides, these three petitions are being disposed of at stage of admission itself. challenge in these three petitions is to common order dated September 13, 2013, passed Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal"). By impugned order, petitioner's applications to rectify order dated May 14, 2010, passed by Tribunal on rectification application was dismissed. order dated May 14, 2010, partly recalled common order dated January 18, 2008, passed in respect of assessment years 1999-2000 to 2001-02 on petitioner's application for rectification. petitioner had during three subject assessment years, viz., assessment years 1999-2000, 2000-01 and 2001-02 claimed deduction under section 80HHC and section 80-IB of Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), while computing its income under section 115JA/115JB of Act. Revenue did not accept petitioner's contention. This resulted in petitioner's filing appeal before Tribunal. In its appeal memo for three assessment years, petitioner had specifically urged aforesaid ground of being entitled to claim deduction under section 80HHC and section 80-IB of Act. This is also indicated in final common order dated January 18, 2008, passed under section 254(1) of Act of Tribunal. However, after recording petitioner's ground as taken up in appeal memo, same is not been considered by Tribunal while disposing of petitioner's appeal finally under section 254(1) of Act by order dated January 18, 2008. title of order dated January 18, 2008, while disposing of three appeals filed by petitioner as well as Revenue for three assessment years reads as under: ITA No. 904, 867 and 868/Mum/2005 (assessment years 1999-2000, 2000-01 and 2001-02) Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Appellant Appellant Circle 29, Mumbai v. Supreme Industries Ltd., Mumbai (PAN Respondent AAACT1344F) ITA Nos. 906,907 and 908/Mum/2005 (assessment years 1999-2000, 2000-01 and 2001-02) Supreme Industries Ltd., Mumbai Appellant v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Respondent. Circle 29, Mumbai As order dated January 18, 2008, of Tribunal under section 254(1) of Act did not deal with petitioner's contention of being entitled to benefit of sections 80HHC and 80-IA of Act, petitioner filed rectification application before Tribunal. However, in title of rectification application, petitioner while seeking to rectify order dated January 18, 2008, by mistake had referred it as arising out of Income Tax Appeal Nos. 904, 867 and 868/Mum/2005. These three appeal numbers referred to appeals filed by Revenue as is evident from title of order dated January 18, 2008. By order dated May 14, 2010, Tribunal allowed miscellaneous application for rectification filed by petitioner by recalling order dated January 18, 2008, to extent of non-consideration of deduction under section 80HHC and section 80-IA of Act. However, title of order dated May 14, 2010, by mistake referred to order dated January 18, 2008, as arising out of Income Tax Appeal Nos. 904, 867 and 868/Mum/ 2005, i.e., Revenue's appeal. title of order dated May 14, 2010, reads as under: M. A. No. 10/Mum/2010 (Arising out of ITA Nos. 904,867 and 868/M/2005: Assessment years 1999-2000 to 2001-02) M/s. Supreme Addl. Commissioner of Industries Ltd. 612, Raheja Income-tax, Large Tax Payers Unit Chambers, 213, Nariman v. (LTU), 29th Floor, World Trade Point, Mumbai 400 021. PA Centre 1, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400 No. AAACT1344F. 005. (Applicant) (Respondent) Thereafter, petitioner realised that order dated May 14, 2010, while rectifying order dated January 18, 2008, which in fact had out of Income Tax Appeals Nos. 906, 907 and 908/Mum/2005 (petitioner's appeal) and not as mentioned by mistake in title of order dated May 14, 2010, as arising out of income-tax appeal bearing Nos. 904, 867 and 868/Mum/2005 (appeal numbers of Revenue). In above view, petitioner filed application for rectification/correction of order dated May 14, 2010. This application was to correct title of order dated May 14, 2010, so as to indicate correct incometax appeal numbers in title of order dated May 14, 2010, as Income Tax Appeals Nos. 906, 907 and 908/Mum/2005 instead of Income Tax Appeals Nos. 904, 867 and 868/Mum/2005 (Revenue's appeal). By impugned order dated September 13, 2013, Tribunal rejected three miscellaneous application filed by petitioner, seeking to correct order of Tribunal dated May 14, 2010. This dismissal of rectification application was on following grounds: (a) rectification application under section 254(2) of Act can be entertained only to rectify order passed under section 254(1) of Act and not to correct error passed under section 254(2) of Act. In support, reliance was placed upon decision of Orissa High Court in CIT v. ITAT [1992] 196 ITR 838 (Orissa); and (b) there is no mistake committed in order dated May 14, 2010, of Tribunal. In any case, proceeding under section 254(2) of Act are meant only for rectifying mistakes apparent from record committed by Tribunal and not mistake of parties concerned. We find it is undisputed position that mistake has occurred in order dated May 14, 2010, in mentioning Income Tax Appeals Nos. 904, 867 and 868/Mum/2005 (being appeal numbers allotted to Revenue's appeal) instead of Income Tax Appeals Nos. 906, 907 and 908/Mum/2005. However, impugned order rejected application for rectification on ground that such application is not maintainable under section 254(2) of Act as held by Orissa High Court in CIT v. President ITAT (supra). It is settled position in law that every authority exercising quasi-judicial powers has inherent/incidental power in discharging of its functions to ensure that justice is done between parties, i.e., no prejudice is caused to any of parties. This power has not to be traced to any provision of Act but inheres in every quasi-judicial authority. This has been so held by Supreme Court in Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal [1980] (Suppl.) SCC 420. Therefore, aforesaid principle of law should have been adopted by Tribunal. It is expected from Tribunal to adopt justice-oriented approach and not defeat legitimate rights on altar of procedures and technicalities. This is particularly so when there is no specific bar in Act to correct order passed on rectification. It is fundamental principle of law that no party should be prejudiced on account of any mistake in order of Tribunal. Though not necessary for disposal of this petition, we express our disapproval of stand taken in impugned order that section 254(2) of Act are meant only for rectifying mistakes of Tribunal and not of parties. Tribunal and parties are not adversarial to each other. In fact, Tribunal and parties normally represented by advocates/chartered accountants are comrades in arms to achieve justice. Therefore, mistake from any source be it parties or Tribunal so long as it becomes part of record, would require examination by Tribunal under section 254(2) of Act. It cannot be dismissed at threshold on above ground. In view of above, we set aside impugned order dated September 13, 2013, and direct Tribunal to pass appropriate order correcting mistake in its order dated May 14, 2010, for all three subject assessment years, i.e., 1999-2000, 2000-01 and 2001-02. With above directions, all three writ petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs. *** Supreme Industries Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax