Rectification cannot correct a debatable capital computation issue where the alleged error is not apparent from the record.

Rectification under section 13 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 is confined to patent mistakes apparent from the record and cannot be used to revisit a conscious assessment on a debatable point. The inclusion of Rs. 18 lakhs in the capital computation depended on interpretation of the statutory provision and Explanation 1 to rule 2 of the Second Schedule, so it was not a self-evident error. The Income-tax Officer therefore had no jurisdiction to rectify the assessment, and the issue was decided against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the inclusion of Rs. 18 lakhs in the capital computation gave rise to a mistake apparent from the record so as to justify rectification under section 13 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964.

Analysis: The original assessment had consciously included the amount in the capital base. The later attempt to reopen the matter proceeded on a different view of the same provisions and facts. Rectification under section 13 is confined to patent mistakes apparent from the record and cannot be used where the issue is debatable or where two possible views of the statutory provision and the facts are conceivable. The question whether Explanation 1 to rule 2 of the Second Schedule applied was not a self-evident error but one requiring interpretation and consideration of competing positions.

Conclusion: There was no mistake apparent from the record, and the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to rectify the assessment under section 13. The issue is decided against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification is impermissible where the alleged error is debatable or depends on interpretation of the governing provision, and not a patent mistake apparent from the record.

---