Mistake apparent from record limits rectification under Section 35; proviso interpretation cannot justify reopening assessment.

Rectification under Section 35 is confined to correcting mistakes apparent from the record and does not permit re examination of provisional constructs; treating a belated declaration under the first proviso to Section 17(1) as void by construing the second proviso involves interpretive judgment rather than an obvious record error, so a rectification notice premised on that construction exceeds the limited jurisdiction for rectification and cannot be sustained, resulting in the quashing of the impugned rectification and relief to the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Income-tax Officer had jurisdiction under Section 35 of the Income-tax Act to rectify the assessment by treating a belated declaration under the first proviso to Section 17(1) as non est and thereby reopening the assessment.

Analysis: The question turns on the scope of rectification under Section 35, which is confined to mistakes apparent from the record and does not extend to errors requiring extended investigation or interpretation of provisos. The assessment proceeded on the basis that the assessee's declaration was within the first proviso to Section 17(1). The assessing officer subsequently construed the second proviso to Section 17(1) as precluding the declaration and issued a rectification notice. The correctness of that construction of the second proviso is not so self-evident as to render the alleged error a mistake apparent from the record; it involves interpretation of the proviso and is open to argument. As such the order purporting to be a rectification exceeded the limited jurisdiction conferred by Section 35 and was not sustainable.

Conclusion: The rectification order of the Income-tax Officer under Section 35 is beyond jurisdiction and is set aside; the petitioner (assessee) succeeds.

---