Debatable issue not rectifiable: conflicting Tribunal views prevented correction of a purported mistake apparent from the record.

A question on whether a deposit under the Companies Deposits (Surcharge on Income-tax) Scheme, 1976, could be treated as payment of surcharge for computing chargeable profits under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, was held to be debatable. Because conflicting Tribunal views existed, and a Special Bench had taken the view that such a deposit could not be equated with surcharge payment, the issue was not a patent error apparent from the record. A matter on which two reasonable views are possible cannot be corrected through rectification proceedings. The rectification order was therefore unsustainable and the issue was answered in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the allowance or disallowance of the deposit made under the Companies Deposits (Surcharge on Income-tax) Scheme, 1976, as a payment of surcharge for computing chargeable profits under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, was a debatable question so as to fall outside rectification under section 13 of the Act.

Analysis: The issue turned on whether the point sought to be revised was a clear and obvious mistake apparent from the record. The controversy had already produced conflicting views among different Tribunal Benches, and a Special Bench had taken the view that a deposit under the scheme could not be equated with payment of surcharge. Where two views are reasonably possible, the matter cannot be treated as a patent mistake amenable to rectification. The existence of judicial conflict showed that the question was not self-evident on the record.

Conclusion: The rectification order was not sustainable because the point was debatable and did not constitute a mistake apparent from the record. The question was answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A matter on which conflicting views are possible, or have in fact been taken, is not a mistake apparent from the record and cannot be corrected in rectification proceedings.

---