Rectification under section 154 cannot be used for a debatable tax credit claim on rental income already assessed elsewhere.

Section 154 could not be used to seek a further tax credit for rental income already assessed in the tenant-company's hands, because the assessee and the tenant were separate taxable entities and the alleged double-credit issue was at least highly debatable. The earlier authority relied on involved a different statutory setting and a prohibition on double assessment between distinct persons under that regime, which did not apply here. Since credit for tax paid by the tenant-company had already been allowed in its assessment and no clear statutory basis supported an additional credit in the assessee's hands, the non-grant of such credit was not a patent mistake apparent from the record. The rectification claim was therefore rightly rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee could invoke section 154 to claim credit for taxes paid by another company on rental income, on the footing that the same income had been assessed in the assessee's hands and that non-grant of such credit constituted a mistake apparent from record.

Analysis: The claim rested on the proposition that the rental income received by the tenant-company had been treated as the assessee's income and, therefore, the tax paid by that company on the same income should be adjusted in the assessee's assessment. The earlier decision relied upon concerned taxation of income between individuals and a Hindu undivided family under a different statutory setting, where the statute itself prohibited double assessment of the same income in that manner. Here, the assessee and the tenant-company were separate taxable entities, the rental income had already been assessed in the tenant-company's hands, and credit for tax paid there had also been allowed. On these facts, no clear statutory basis existed for granting the assessee a further credit, and the question was at least highly debatable. Such a controversy could not be treated as a patent mistake capable of rectification under section 154.

Conclusion: The claim was not rectifiable under section 154 and was rightly rejected.

---