Rectification only for mistakes apparent on record; later disclosure of common ownership did not justify refund or correction.

Rectification under section 35 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 was confined to a mistake apparent from the assessment record. Because the record did not show that the five collieries belonged to the same firm, and the assessments had been accepted without protest, the later disclosure of common ownership did not create a patent error capable of rectification. The alleged mistake was not clerical or obvious on the face of the record, so the Commissioner was justified in refusing rectification and refund. The reference failed, and the answer was against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to rectification and refund under section 35 on the footing that the assessments contained a mistake apparent from the record.

Analysis: Section 35 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 applied only where there was a mistake apparent from the record of assessment. The record did not disclose that the five collieries belonged to the same firm, and the assessments had been accepted without protest. The subsequent disclosure of common ownership after the original assessments had been accepted did not convert the matter into a patent mistake on the record. The circumstances showed no bona fide clerical or obvious error capable of rectification under section 35, and the case did not fall within the scope of that provision. The Commissioner was therefore justified in refusing rectification and refund.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to rectification or refund under section 35, and the answer was against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The Reference failed because the assessments disclosed no mistake apparent from the record warranting statutory rectification or refund.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification under the income-tax rectification provision is confined to mistakes apparent from the assessment record and cannot be used where the alleged error is not patent on the face of the record.

---