Rectification for apparent assessment error upheld, with the limitation under section 35 held inapplicable to the consequential demand notice.

An apparent omission of super-tax and surcharge from the original assessment was treated as a mistake evident from the record, so rectification under section 35 was proper and resort to reopening under section 34 was unnecessary. The limitation in section 35 was held to govern only the making of the rectification order, not the consequential notice of demand issued under sub-section (4), which was treated as a notice under section 29. Accordingly, the rectification and the demand notice were upheld, and the assessee's objections on jurisdiction and limitation failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Income-tax Officer could invoke rectification jurisdiction under section 35 instead of reopening the assessment under section 34; (ii) whether the notice of demand issued after rectification was barred because it was served after the four-year period mentioned in section 35 had expired.

Issue (i): whether the Income-tax Officer could invoke rectification jurisdiction under section 35 instead of reopening the assessment under section 34

Analysis: The omission of super-tax and surcharge from the original assessment was an admitted error on the face of the record. A mistake so evident from the assessment record fell squarely within the rectification power. Once such an apparent mistake existed, there was no basis for denying jurisdiction under section 35 or requiring resort to section 34.

Conclusion: The rectification was validly made under section 35 and the objection based on section 34 failed.

Issue (ii): whether the notice of demand issued after rectification was barred because it was served after the four-year period mentioned in section 35 had expired

Analysis: The limitation in section 35 applied only to the making of the rectification order under sub-section (1). The notice of demand issued under sub-section (4) was a consequential step following a valid rectification and was deemed to be issued under section 29. The statutory period governing rectification could not be extended to the consequential demand notice, and no separate limitation barred its issuance in this case.

Conclusion: The notice of demand was not time-barred and the objection failed.

Final Conclusion: The petition was untenable on both grounds and the rectification and consequential demand were upheld, leaving the assessee without relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an error is apparent from the assessment record, rectification may be made under section 35, and the limitation governing rectification does not control the consequential notice of demand issued after a valid rectification.

---