Rectification under the Estate Duty Act is limited to patent errors, with notice required to all legal representatives before valid proceedings.

An order under section 61 of the Estate Duty Act was held appealable under section 62 where rectification affected the accountable person's liability to estate duty. Rectification proceedings against a deceased accountable person required notice to all legal representatives unless one was shown to represent the entire estate, so service on only one was insufficient and the proceedings were invalid. The dispute whether the deceased had only a half share or full interest in Hindu undivided family property was not a mistake apparent from the record, because it was debatable and required adjudication rather than simple correction.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether an order passed under section 61 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 is appealable under section 62 of that Act; (ii) whether rectification proceedings under section 61 require service of notice on all legal representatives where the accountable person has died; (iii) whether the question whether the deceased had only half share or full interest in the Hindu undivided family property was a mistake apparent from the record capable of rectification under section 61.

Issue (i): Whether an order passed under section 61 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 is appealable under section 62 of that Act.

Analysis: Section 62(1)(b) is couched in wide terms and permits an appeal where, as a result of rectification, the accountable person denies liability to estate duty. The appellate remedy is therefore available against an order passed under section 61 when the rectified order affects liability to pay duty.

Conclusion: The order under section 61 was appealable under section 62, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether rectification proceedings under section 61 require service of notice on all legal representatives where the accountable person has died.

Analysis: Where a deceased accountable person is represented by more than one legal representative, the estate must ordinarily be represented as a whole before proceeding. Service on only one legal representative, in the absence of a finding that such person represented the entire estate, does not validly initiate rectification proceedings.

Conclusion: Notice on only one legal representative was insufficient and the rectification proceedings were invalid, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Issue (iii): Whether the question whether the deceased had only half share or full interest in the Hindu undivided family property was a mistake apparent from the record capable of rectification under section 61.

Analysis: A mistake apparent from the record must be obvious and patent. The controversy as to what property passed on the death of the deceased was a debatable issue requiring adjudication rather than a simple correction of an obvious error.

Conclusion: The matter was not a mistake apparent from the record and could not be rectified under section 61, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: All referred questions were answered in the affirmative and the Revenue did not succeed on any issue.

Ratio Decidendi: An order of rectification is appealable where it affects tax liability, notice must ordinarily be served on all legal representatives unless one represents the entire estate, and only an obvious and patent error can be corrected in rectification proceedings.

---