Rectification on a ground treated as not pressed failed where the record supported the Tribunal's estimate-based addition.

Refusal to rectify was upheld because no mistake apparent from the record was shown in relation to the Tribunal's treatment of the ground as not pressed. The estimate-based addition in the pawning business was sustained since the record before the Assessing Officer supported the Tribunal's view and no cogent contrary material established that the ground had in fact been pressed. In the absence of such evidence, rectification was not warranted and the addition remained undisturbed against the assessee.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in refusing rectification and sustaining the addition of Rs. 50,000 in the pawning business on the basis that the ground had not been pressed and the estimate was supported by the record.

Analysis: The controversy related to the addition made on estimated investment in the pawning business. The Tribunal treated the ground as not pressed, noted the absence of material to show the actual calculation, and sustained the estimate on the basis of the record before the Assessing Officer. In rectification proceedings, no apparent mistake was shown. In the absence of cogent evidence that the ground had in fact been pressed, no interference was warranted with the Tribunal's view.

Conclusion: The refusal to rectify the order and the sustaining of the addition were upheld, and the issue was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on the substantive addition issue, and the Tribunal's estimate-based addition was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A finding that a ground was not pressed, when supported by the record and unshaken by cogent contrary evidence, does not disclose a mistake apparent from the record so as to justify rectification.

---