Rectification for apparent mistake fails where the recorded error differs from the real legal objection.

Rectification under section 35 is permissible only when the very mistake identified by the authority is apparent from the record. Here, the officer had consciously applied the relevant provisions to dividend income and proceeded on the basis that grossing up and consequential relief were attracted. The later rectification was justified as an arithmetical mistake, but no such mistake was shown; the real objection was a different legal contention that the grossing-up provisions were inapplicable. A rectification jurisdiction cannot rest on a ground different from the one recorded as the apparent error, so the order was without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Income-tax Officer could invoke section 35 to rectify the assessment on the footing of a mistake apparent from the record.

Analysis: Section 35 permits rectification only where the authority itself identifies a mistake apparent from the record. The assessment order showed that the officer had consciously applied the relevant provisions to the dividend income and had proceeded on the basis that grossing up and consequential relief were attracted. The purported rectification, however, was founded on a supposed arithmetical mistake which was not shown to exist, while the real objection later advanced was that the provisions governing grossing up were inapplicable. A jurisdiction under section 35 cannot be sustained on a basis different from the one recorded by the officer as the apparent mistake.

Conclusion: The rectification order was without jurisdiction and was liable to be quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification under the mistake-correction provision is valid only when the very mistake identified by the authority is one apparent from the record; a different, unrecorded legal error cannot sustain jurisdiction.

---