Rectification cannot replace reassessment where revised share valuation rests only on a change of opinion, not an apparent error.

Rectification under section 61 of the Estate Duty Act could not be used to alter share valuation where the same issue had already been taken up in reassessment proceedings that were later annulled. The ITAT held that no mistake apparent from the record was shown; the later attempt rested only on a different valuation view, amounting to a change of opinion. Section 61 could not operate as a substitute for reassessment or as a back-door method to revive a concluded valuation dispute, so the revised valuation order could not stand and the assessee succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether rectification under section 61 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 could be used to revise the valuation of shares after the reassessment on the same issue had already been annulled.

Analysis: The valuation of the shares had already been considered in the assessment and later attempted to be altered through reassessment proceedings under section 59, which were annulled. The subsequent rectification proceedings did not disclose any obvious mistake, omission, or error apparent from the record. Instead, the attempt was only to adopt a different valuation on the basis of a later opinion, which amounted to a change of opinion. Rectification under section 61 could not be used as a substitute for reassessment or as a means to reopen a concluded matter through a back-door route.

Conclusion: Rectification under section 61 was not permissible on these facts and the order sustaining the revised valuation could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The valuation dispute could not be revived through rectification after the reassessment had failed, and the assessee succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 61 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 does not permit rectification where the authority is only seeking to change its opinion on valuation and no mistake apparent from the record is shown.

---