Patent omission of a governing statutory explanation can justify rectification of assessment records under the surtax law.

Non-consideration of the Explanation to rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, while treating items as reserves was a patent omission capable of rectification under section 13. The High Court held that failure to notice a statutory provision directly governing the assessment can amount to a mistake apparent from the record. The assessee's contention that the issue was debatable did not prevail, as the proceedings had proceeded on the footing that the Explanation applied to the items in question. The rectification was therefore valid and the reference was answered against the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that there was a mistake apparent from the record rectifiable under section 13 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964.

Analysis: The Income-tax Officer had overlooked the Explanation to rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 while treating certain items as reserves. The omission to notice a statutory provision can constitute an apparent mistake capable of rectification under section 13. The assessee's contention that the matter was debatable could not prevail because that question had not been raised before the subordinate authorities and the proceedings proceeded on the footing that the items in question fell within the mischief of the Explanation.

Conclusion: The rectification was valid and the reference was answered against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The decision upheld the Income-tax Officer's power to correct the assessment by rectifying the patent omission of the applicable Explanation.

Ratio Decidendi: Non-consideration of a statutory provision that directly governs the assessment can amount to a mistake apparent from the record and be rectified under the statutory rectification power.

---