Rectification only for patent errors, not debatable tax issues involving deductions, capital computation, or reserves.

Rectification under section 13 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 is confined to an obvious and patent mistake apparent from the record, applying the same principle as section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. A point requiring long-drawn reasoning or involving competing views on law or fact cannot be corrected through rectification. The proposed corrections here, including the treatment of deductions under sections 80-I and 80J, the impact of bonus shares on capital computation, and the nature of reserves, all raised debatable legal and factual questions rather than self-evident errors. The notices were therefore without jurisdiction and the assessee succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the notices issued under section 13 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, could be sustained when the alleged errors required examination of debatable questions of law and fact, and therefore were not mistakes apparent from the record.

Analysis: Section 13 authorises rectification only of a mistake apparent from the record. A mistake is not apparent if it is not obvious or patent and can be established only by a long drawn process of reasoning on a point on which two views are possible. The same principle governing rectification under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, applies with equal force to section 13 of the Surtax Act. The various objections sought to be corrected in these petitions, including the treatment of deductions under sections 80-I and 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the effect of bonus shares on capital computation, and the character of the relevant reserves, all involved contested legal and factual questions and not self-evident errors.

Conclusion: The impugned notices were without jurisdiction because the alleged mistakes were not apparent on the face of the record; the relief was in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A rectification provision can be invoked only for an obvious and patent mistake, and not for a debatable issue of law or fact requiring detailed reasoning.

---