Mistake apparent from record requires a clear record-based error; disputed succession date could not justify rectification.

Rectification under Section 48 of the Travancore Income Tax Act, 1121 was unavailable because the alleged error was not apparent from the assessment record. The claim for exemption under Section 35(4) depended on proving that succession to the business occurred in 1947, but the materials were conflicting and did not establish that date with certainty. Because the succession date was a disputed factual issue outside the face of the record, the omission to grant relief was not a patent mistake capable of rectification. The assessment order and the refusal to rectify it were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner established that the succession to the business took place in 1947 so as to attract the exemption under Section 35(4) of the Travancore Income Tax Act, 1121. (ii) Whether the alleged omission to grant relief under Section 35(4) constituted a mistake apparent from the record capable of rectification under Section 48 of the Travancore Income Tax Act, 1121.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner established that the succession to the business took place in 1947 so as to attract the exemption under Section 35(4) of the Travancore Income Tax Act, 1121.

Analysis: The materials before the Court did not permit a definite finding that the succession occurred in 1947. The petitioner's own earlier statement indicated that succession took place on 1-1-1948, while later affidavits suggested earlier dates. The record of assessment did not disclose any clear basis for treating the succession as having occurred in 1947.

Conclusion: The petitioner failed to establish that the succession took place in 1947.

Issue (ii): Whether the alleged omission to grant relief under Section 35(4) constituted a mistake apparent from the record capable of rectification under Section 48 of the Travancore Income Tax Act, 1121.

Analysis: Rectification under Section 48 is confined to mistakes apparent from the record. On the assessment record, there was no indication of a succession in 1947, and the claim for relief depended on a disputed factual issue outside the apparent record. The alleged omission was therefore not a patent mistake amenable to rectification.

Conclusion: The omission did not amount to a mistake apparent from the record and was not rectifiable under Section 48.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the reassessment and the rectification refusal failed, and the assessment order and the order refusing rectification were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim for rectification cannot succeed unless the error is manifest on the face of the assessment record; a disputed factual question, such as the date of succession, is not a mistake apparent from the record.

---