Rectification cannot reopen a debatable tax issue, and non-buildable scheme land is outside urban land for wealth-tax.

Rectification jurisdiction is limited to correcting a mistake apparent from the record and cannot be used to reopen a debatable question of law or substitute one possible view for another. The article also explains that land covered by an operative improvement scheme, where construction is no longer permissible, does not fall within "urban land" under section 2(ea) for wealth-tax purposes. On that basis, the acquired land was excluded from net wealth for the relevant assessment years, and the earlier taxable treatment could not be revived through rectification.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal could, in rectification proceedings, alter its earlier finding on the taxability of the acquired land when the point was debatable. (ii) Whether land covered by the improvement scheme and the right to receive compensation were liable to wealth-tax for the relevant assessment years.

Issue (i): Whether the Tribunal could, in rectification proceedings, alter its earlier finding on the taxability of the acquired land when the point was debatable.

Analysis: The power of rectification is confined to correcting a mistake apparent from the record. A point requiring examination of competing views or a long-drawn process of reasoning cannot be reopened under that jurisdiction. The question whether the relevant date was the resolution date, the notification date, or the date of acquisition was not free from doubt and was therefore debatable.

Conclusion: The rectification order could not be sustained on this issue and the finding was against the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether land covered by the improvement scheme and the right to receive compensation were liable to wealth-tax for the relevant assessment years.

Analysis: Once the improvement trust passed the resolution framing the scheme, the statutory scheme restrictions operated and construction on the covered land became impermissible. Land on which construction is not permissible under the law in force does not fall within the definition of urban land under section 2(ea). The assessee was therefore entitled to exclusion of the acquired land from net wealth, and the earlier order treating the land as taxable asset could not be revived through rectification.

Conclusion: The acquired land was not exigible to wealth-tax for the relevant years and the assessee succeeded on this issue.

Final Conclusion: The rectification order was set aside, the original appellate relief was restored, and the assessments were directed to be reframed excluding the acquired land from wealth-tax liability for the relevant assessment years.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification jurisdiction cannot be used to decide a debatable question of law, and land rendered non-buildable by an operative statutory scheme falls outside the expression urban land for wealth-tax purposes.

---