Valuation difference alone cannot justify rectification; wealth-tax figures could not replace an independently made estate duty assessment.

Rectification under section 61 of the Estate Duty Act was held impermissible where the original estate duty valuation had been independently made on the basis of the approved valuer's report, inspection and relevant property features. A mere difference in valuation does not amount to a mistake apparent on the face of the record, so the assessment could not be revised by substituting one plausible valuation for another. The wealth-tax valuation was not conclusive for estate duty purposes and could not serve as the foundation for rectification, though it could be relevant material. The appeal against the rectified assessment was maintainable because the operative order was the assessment as rectified.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an appeal lay against the assessment order as rectified under section 61 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953; (ii) whether the valuation adopted in the estate duty assessment disclosed any mistake apparent on the face of the record justifying rectification under section 61; (iii) whether the wealth-tax valuation could form the basis for rectification of the estate duty assessment.

Issue (i): Whether an appeal lay against the assessment order as rectified under section 61 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953.

Analysis: Once rectification is made, the operative order is the assessment as rectified and not the original assessment standing by itself. An appeal directed against the assessment after rectification is therefore treated as an appeal against the subsisting assessment order. The direction earlier issued to admit the appeal and the subsequent condonation of delay supported maintainability.

Conclusion: The appeal was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the valuation adopted in the estate duty assessment disclosed any mistake apparent on the face of the record justifying rectification under section 61.

Analysis: The original estate duty valuation had been made after consideration of the approved valuer's report, inspection, and discussion of the relevant property features. The valuation adopted in wealth-tax proceedings was found to be ad hoc and not conclusive. A difference of valuation, without a glaring or obvious error on the record, does not amount to a mistake apparent on the face of the record.

Conclusion: No rectification under section 61 was permissible.

Issue (iii): Whether the wealth-tax valuation could form the basis for rectification of the estate duty assessment.

Analysis: The wealth-tax figures were not treated as determinative of estate duty value and could at best be relevant material. Since the estate duty valuation had been independently arrived at on the basis of valuation evidence and inspection, the wealth-tax assessment could not be used as the foundation for reopening or rectifying the estate duty assessment.

Conclusion: The wealth-tax valuation could not provide the basis for rectification.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered by upholding the view that the rectification order was unsustainable and that the estate duty valuation could not be revised merely by relying on the wealth-tax assessment figures.

Ratio Decidendi: A valuation difference, by itself, does not constitute a mistake apparent on the face of the record, and a rectification provision cannot be invoked to substitute one plausible valuation with another merely because a different valuation appears in another tax proceeding.

---