Rectification cannot cure a debatable reserve-versus-provision issue when the alleged error is not apparent from the record.

The character of an amount shown as "reserve against export obligation" required examination of its true nature and purpose under the Companies Act, 1956, and could not be resolved by a mechanical reading of the record. Because the reserve-versus-provision distinction depended on surrounding facts, intention, and governing case law, the question was debatable rather than an obvious patent error. Rectification under section 13 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 is confined to mistakes apparent from the record, so such a contested issue fell outside its scope. The rectification order was therefore invalid and the assessee succeeded on the jurisdictional point.

---

---

Issues: Whether the alleged error in treating the amount standing under "reserve against export obligation" as a reserve, and allowing standard deduction in the original surtax assessment, was an apparent mistake liable to rectification under section 13 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964.

Analysis: The character of the amount as a reserve or a provision could not be determined by a merely mechanical application of the record. The distinction depends on the true nature and purpose of the retention or appropriation, and the relevant tests under the Companies Act, 1956, as explained in the governing case law, require consideration of surrounding facts and intention. Such a question is inherently complex and cannot be treated as an obvious or patent mistake. Since rectification under section 13 is confined to mistakes apparent from the record, a debatable question requiring elaborate reasoning falls outside its scope.

Conclusion: The rectification order was invalid, and the assessee succeeded on the jurisdictional issue.

---