Mistake apparent from the record cannot support rectification where the issue admits of two reasonable views.

A rectification under section 35 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 could be invoked only for a mistake apparent from the record, meaning an obvious and self-evident error. The Tribunal's view that the deduction claim for directors' remuneration had to be tested under both section 10(2)(xv) and section 10(4A) did not disclose any manifest mistake. Because the issue admitted of more than one reasonable view, it could not be corrected through rectification. The Tribunal therefore lacked jurisdiction to recall its earlier appellate order on that ground, and the rectification order was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal could recall its earlier appellate order under section 35 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, on the ground of a mistake apparent from the record.

Analysis: The dispute turned on whether the Tribunal had committed an obvious and patent mistake in proceeding on the footing that the allowance claimed by the assessee had to satisfy both section 10(2)(xv) and section 10(4A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The Court held that the claim for deduction of remuneration paid to directors had to be tested under both provisions where section 10(4A) applied, and that the Tribunal's approach did not disclose any manifest error. At most, the question admitted of two possible views, and such a controversy could not be treated as a mistake apparent from the record within the meaning of section 35.

Conclusion: The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to recall its earlier order on the alleged ground of a mistake apparent from the record, and its rectification order was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The assessee's challenge failed, and the Revenue succeeded in sustaining the High Court's interference with the Tribunal's rectification order.

Ratio Decidendi: A mistake apparent from the record must be self-evident and not one requiring prolonged reasoning or resolution of competing views; where two views are reasonably possible, rectification under section 35 cannot be invoked.

---