The power to rectify a mistake or error inadvertently committed is an inherent jurisdiction of a court or Tribunal, but this power is distinct from the power to review an order, which is a creature of statute.

( 1 ) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the constitutional writ jurisdiction of this court, inter alia, for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated May 13, 1971 made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, "a" Bench, Calcutta, on the miscellaneous application of the petitioner in the I. T. As. Nos. 14078 and 14079 of 1967-68 for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62 and for a direction for re-hearing the I. T. A. No. 11416 of 1967-68, I. T. A. No. 11419 of 1967-68 and I. T. A. No. 14077 of 1967-68.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to the present application as stated in the petition are set out hereunder : the petitioner is a partnership firm. One Durga Prasad Nathani carried on business under the name and style of M/s. Shew Paper Exchange with effect from January 24, 1958. After November 10, 1958, i. e. , the closing date of the accounting year of the said business, the adoptive mother of Durga Prasad and Durga Prasad formed a partnership firm under the name and style of M/s. Shew Paper Exchange. Subsequently, a deed of partnership was executed on January 27, 1959, in respect of the said firm and the bank account of the said proprietary concern of M/s. Shew Paper Exchange was converted into a partnership account with effect from January 28, 1959. The said firm was registered with the Registrar of Firms on April 18, 1959, and an application was made to the Income-tax Officer for registration of the said firm. The Income-tax Officer, "c" Ward, Dist. V (I), Calcutta, assessed the total income of the said firm as an unregistered firm by an order dated January 8, 1965. By another order of the same date respondent No. 1 refused to register the petitioner-firm under the provisions of the Income-tax Act. The respondent No. 1 rejected the contention that Smt. Gomti Devi was a partner of the firm and held that she was a mere name-lender.

( 3 ) FOR the assessment year 1961-62, respondent No. 1 refused again to register the said firm under the provisions of the Income-tax Act. For the aforesaid assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62, Durga Prasad was assessed in his individual capacity by respondent No. 2.

( 4 ) AGAINST the said order of respondent No. 1, dated January 8, 1965, refusing to register the said firm under the Income-tax Act, Durga Prasad preferred an appeal. The said appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax by the order dated April 26, 1967. The appeal against the order of assessment for treating the firm as the proprietary concern of Durga Prasad was also dismissed on April 26, 1967. The appeals preferred by the petitioner against the said orders of assessment for the aforesaid assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62 were rejected by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, "a" Bench, Calcutta, on September 5, 1969, and thereby upheld the rejection of registration for the years 1960-61 and 1961-62.

( 5 ) AS against the order of assessment made by respondent No. 2 for the assessment year 1961-62, respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal, but the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, "e" Bench, Calcutta, by its order dated July 25, 1970, in I. T. A. No. 11419 of 1967-68, held that there was nothing to show that Smt. Gomti Devi was the benamidar of Durga Prasad in the petitioner-firm and as such the petitioner-firm, although denied registration, was rightly assessed as an unregistered firm by the Income-tax Officer.

( 6 ) IN the appeal preferred by Durga Prasad in the I. T. A. No. 14077 of 1967-68 for the assessment year 1961-62, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, "e" Bench, Calcutta, held by its order dated July 28, 1970, that Durga Prasad was not liable to be assessed to income from the business of the partership firm as the business had been carried on by the partnership firm. The Tribunal further held that the question as to whether the petitioner was a firm or individual in Durga Prasad Nathani who carried on the