Rectification cannot be used to reassess a debatable business-mix question or withdraw an earlier loss set-off.

Rectification power under income-tax law is confined to mistakes apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used as a review, revision or reassessment. A debatable question, such as whether tobacco and cashew dealings formed the same business, involves factual and circumstantial inquiry and is not a patent error suitable for rectification. The authority therefore could not withdraw an earlier set-off of carried-forward loss by re-characterising the activities through a fresh inference on the assessment record. The rectification orders were held to be without jurisdiction and were quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Income-tax Officer could invoke the rectification power to re-open a completed assessment by treating the assessee's tobacco and cashew dealings as distinct businesses and withdrawing the earlier set-off of carried-forward loss.

Analysis: The power of rectification extends only to mistakes that are apparent on the face of the record and does not authorise a review, revision, or reassessment under the guise of correction. Whether two lines of activity constitute the same business is a mixed question of fact and circumstance, often requiring examination and argument, and is not a patent error discernible from the assessment record alone. Once the original set-off had been allowed, the authority could not revisit that conclusion through rectification by drawing a fresh inference on a debatable factual question.

Conclusion: The rectification orders were without jurisdiction and were quashed; the assessee succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification is confined to patent mistakes apparent on the record and cannot be used to effect a reassessment or to decide a debatable factual issue such as whether different business activities constitute the same business.

---