Mistake apparent from record rule bars rectification where controlled company liability and valuation depend on debatable statutory interpretation.

Rectification under estate duty law was refused because no mistake apparent from the record was shown in treating the controlled company as an accountable person and in applying rule 15 for valuation. The challenge depended on disputed interpretation of sections 17 and 19 and rule 15, including whether a transfer to the company and the existence of benefits were necessary before accountability could arise. The Court treated this as a debatable statutory issue, not a patent error capable of rectification. The claimed apportionment of liability also failed, as the statute contemplated joint and several liability with reimbursement dealt with separately.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refusal to rectify the estate duty assessment under section 61 was justified on the ground that there was no mistake apparent from the record in treating the controlled company as an accountable person and in applying rule 15 for valuation.

Analysis: The assessment proceedings showed that the company had been brought into the enquiry as a controlled company and had participated without protest. The challenge turned on contested construction of section 17, section 19 and rule 15, namely whether a transfer to the company and the existence of benefits were necessary before the company could be treated as accountable. The Court held that this was not an obvious or patent error but a debatable issue requiring argument on statutory interpretation. A point that is open to two views cannot be rectified as a mistake apparent from the record. The claimed apportionment of liability also did not disclose any patent error because the statute contemplated joint and several liability and provided reimbursement separately.

Conclusion: The refusal to exercise rectification power was ; no mistake apparent from the record was shown, and the challenge failed against the assessee.

---