Debatable surtax computation issue cannot be rectified as a mistake apparent from the record when two views are possible.

Omission to make a proportionate diminution of capital under rule 4 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, in relation to the amount deducted under section 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was held not to be a mistake apparent from the record. The issue was debatable, because more than one view was reasonably possible on the application of rule 4 to surtax capital computation and another High Court had taken a contrary view. Rectification under section 13 was therefore impermissible, as a patent or self-evident error is required for correction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the omission to make a proportionate diminution of capital under rule 4 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, in relation to the amount deducted under section 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961, constituted a mistake apparent from the record capable of rectification under section 13 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964.

Analysis: The Court held that the point turned on the existence of two possible views on the application of rule 4 to the computation of capital for surtax purposes. Since another High Court had taken a contrary view, the matter could not be treated as one admitting of only a single possible interpretation. A rectification under section 13 was therefore unavailable because the alleged error was not a patent or apparent mistake on the record.

Conclusion: The failure to reduce the capital proportionately under rule 4 was not a mistake apparent from the record, and the rectification was impermissible.

Ratio Decidendi: A debatable point of law, or one on which two views are reasonably possible, does not amount to a mistake apparent from the record for the purpose of rectification.

---