Rectification for mistake apparent from the record cannot cover a debatable issue on delayed declaration

Rectification under section 35 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 is limited to mistakes apparent from the record and cannot be used to revisit issues requiring argument, investigation, or interpretation. The court held that the assessee's declaration under the proviso to section 17(1) had been treated as effective when the assessment was made, and the later objection on delay raised a debatable question about whether the second proviso allowed condonation. Because the alleged defect was not self-evident from the record, the rectification order was without jurisdiction and unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Income-tax Officer could validly rectify the assessment under section 35 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 on the ground that the assessee's declaration under the proviso to section 17(1) was out of time and therefore the original computation involved a mistake apparent from the record.

Analysis: Rectification under section 35 is confined to mistakes apparent from the record and does not extend to errors which can be established only by a process of argument, investigation, or interpretation. The assessment had been made on the footing that the assessee's declaration under the proviso to section 17(1) was effective, and the later objection turned on whether the second proviso permitted condonation of delay. That question was not free from doubt and was capable of debate, so the alleged error could not be treated as self-evident from the record.

Conclusion: The rectification order was without jurisdiction under section 35 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 and was unsustainable; the assessee succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: A debatable legal question or one requiring interpretative reasoning is not a mistake apparent from the record for the purpose of rectification.

---