Rectification cannot a debatable depreciation claim; higher rate for hiring vehicles was not a mistake apparent from record.

Rectification under section 154 was impermissible because the depreciation rate for motor cars used in connection with hiring receipts depended on a debatable legal issue and was not an apparent mistake from the record. The original assessment had allowed depreciation at 30% under section 143(3), and the later reduction to 15% required resolving competing views on the correct classification of the vehicles. As the matter involved two possible legal opinions, the adjustment could not be made by rectification. The reduction was therefore invalid and the assessee's higher depreciation claim was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether depreciation on vehicles used for hiring receipts could be reduced from 30% to 15% by invoking rectification under section 154, when the allowability of the higher rate of depreciation was a debatable issue.

Analysis: The assessee had claimed depreciation at 30% on motor cars used in connection with hiring receipts, and the original assessment had allowed the claim under section 143(3). The subsequent reduction to 15% was made only through rectification. The rate applicable depended on whether the vehicles were treated as vehicles used in the business of hiring, and that question had competing views. Where the issue turns on a debatable point of law and requires reasoning on which two opinions are possible, it does not amount to an obvious or patent mistake apparent from the record. Rectification under section 154 is not permissible in such a situation.

Conclusion: The rectification was invalid, the reduction of depreciation from 30% to 15% could not be sustained, and the addition was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 154 cannot be used to correct a claim that depends on a debatable legal issue, because such a question is not a mistake apparent from the record.

---