Rectification cannot rest on a debatable reserve-versus-provision reclassification; only an obvious mistake apparent from the record qualifies.

Rectification under section 13 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 was unavailable where the Income-tax Officer sought to reclassify amounts earlier accepted as reserves for debenture redemption and bad and doubtful debts as provisions. The commercial distinction between a provision and a reserve depends on whether the amount is set aside for an ascertained liability or appropriated from profits without meeting a known liability at the balance-sheet date. Because the issue involved a debatable reappraisal and not an obvious error, no mistake apparent from the record was established, and rectification could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Income-tax Officer was justified in invoking rectification jurisdiction under section 13 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 on the footing that the amounts set apart as reserves for redemption of debentures and for bad and doubtful debts were not reserves but provisions, and whether such action was based on a mistake apparent from the record.

Analysis: The distinction between a provision and a reserve is well settled in commercial accountancy. Amounts set aside to meet a known liability or an ascertained commitment may constitute a provision, whereas amounts appropriated out of profits not designed to meet a liability known to exist at the balance-sheet date are reserves. The record showed that the Income-tax Officer had originally accepted the amounts as reserves while making the surtax assessment and later sought to recharacterise them as provisions. Such a reappraisal on a debatable question could not amount to a mistake apparent from the record. The matter was not one of obvious error but of change of opinion, and rectification could not be used for that purpose.

Conclusion: The Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to invoke section 13 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 on the facts of the case, because no mistake apparent from the record was established.

Final Conclusion: The reference application failed, as rectification under the surtax law could not be sustained on a merely debatable reclassification of reserves as provisions.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification is impermissible where the proposed correction rests on a debatable issue or a mere change of opinion, and not on an obvious mistake apparent from the record.

---