Debatable depreciation rate issue cannot sustain rectification under section 154 when no patent mistake appears on record.

Rectification under section 154 is limited to an obvious and patent mistake apparent from the record, and cannot be used where the alleged error requires detailed reasoning or admits of two possible views. The dispute over whether the special or general depreciation rate applied to machinery and plant required examination of Appendix I and rule 5, making the issue debatable rather than self-evident. As the essential jurisdictional condition for section 154 was absent, the rectification notice was without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the notice issued under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for rectification of the assessment on the basis of the depreciation rates applied to machinery and plant disclosed a mistake apparent from the record and was within jurisdiction.

Analysis: Rectification under section 154 is confined to an obvious and patent mistake; it cannot be invoked where the alleged error depends on long-drawn reasoning or where two views are reasonably possible. The dispute whether the special rate or the general rate of depreciation applied to the assessee's machinery and plant required detailed consideration of Appendix I and rule 5 and was not free from doubt. Since the issue was debatable, the essential jurisdictional fact for invoking section 154 was absent.

Conclusion: The rectification notice was without jurisdiction and was liable to be quashed.

---