Apparent mistake doctrine bars rectification where correction needs detailed reasoning, sustaining cancellation of surtax rectification orders.

Rectification under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act was confined to patent mistakes apparent from the record, and not errors requiring detailed argument or debate. The Income-tax Officer sought to revise the capital computation by reducing the general reserve on account of proposed dividend, but the Tribunal found no apparent mistake and cancelled the rectification orders. That view was upheld, with the court holding that a long-drawn process of reasoning could not justify rectification on these facts. The question was therefore answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that no mistake apparent from the record existed so as to permit rectification under section 13(1)/14(1) of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964.

Analysis: The reference arose from proceedings in which the Income-tax Officer sought to alter the computation of capital by reducing the general reserve on account of proposed dividend. The Tribunal had cancelled the rectification orders on the footing that the alleged error was not an apparent mistake and could not be corrected without a detailed process of argument and debate. In view of the governing principle that only obvious and patent mistakes can be rectified, and not issues requiring elaborate reasoning, the Tribunal's view was sustained.

Conclusion: The question was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue; the Tribunal was correct in law.

Final Conclusion: Rectification under the surtax provisions was not permissible on the facts found, and the Tribunal's cancellation of the Income-tax Officer's orders was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A mistake is not rectifiable as an apparent mistake if its determination requires long-drawn reasoning or debate rather than being patent on the record.

---