Rectification cannot change firm status where renewal of registration is already in force and only a signature defect is alleged.

Rectification under section 36 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act is limited to mistakes apparent from the record and cannot be used to change an assessee's status from a registered firm to an unregistered firm. The renewal of registration under rule 6 was already in force, the firm's genuineness and partners' shares were undisputed, and the only defect alleged concerned the signature on the renewal application. Treating that defect as an apparent mistake would amount to a change of opinion rather than valid rectification. The High Court therefore held that the officer had no jurisdiction to alter the registration status on that basis.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, while exercising rectification powers under section 36 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, could alter the status of an assessee from a registered firm to an unregistered firm by treating the order granting renewal of registration as a mistake apparent from the record.

Analysis: The order granting renewal of registration under rule 6 was already in force and had not been varied by any higher authority. The firm's genuineness was not in dispute, and there was no controversy regarding any change in the partners' shares. The defect relied on by the department related only to the manner in which the renewal application had been signed. The Court held that rectification under section 36 is confined to mistakes apparent from the record and cannot be used to disturb an existing renewal order or to substitute a different view on the same material. Changing the assessee's status from registered firm to unregistered firm on that basis would amount to a change of opinion, not rectification of an apparent mistake.

Conclusion: The officer had no jurisdiction under section 36 to alter the assessee's status from registered firm to unregistered firm, and the writ appeal failed.

---