Rectification of wealth-tax assessment barred where jewellery exemption issue was debatable and no patent error appeared on record.

Rectification under section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 is confined to mistakes apparent from the record, and it cannot be used where the issue depends on rival interpretations or disputed questions of law and fact. Although the amendment to section 5(1)(viii) by the Finance Act No. 2 of 1971 was retrospective, whether the assessee's gold ornaments and jewellery fell within the pre-amendment exemption remained debatable. The appellate order therefore could not be rectified to include the value of the ornaments and jewellery in net wealth.

---

---

Issues: Whether the value of gold ornaments and jewellery could be included in the assessee's net wealth by rectifying the appellate order under section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, after the retrospective amendment to section 5(1)(viii) by the Finance Act No. 2 of 1971.

Analysis: The amendment to section 5(1)(viii) was retrospective, but the question whether the assessee's jewellery fell within the pre-amendment meaning of the exemption provision involved debatable issues. An error can be rectified under section 35 only when it is apparent from the record; where the matter turns on rival interpretations and disputed questions of law and fact, rectification is not permissible. The earlier decision of the Court in an identical matter was followed, holding that the absence of a clear and patent mistake barred rectification.

Conclusion: The Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the value of the ornaments and jewellery could not be included by invoking section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.

---