Rectification under Wealth-tax law cannot correct debatable statutory issues, and no departmental appeal lies without express authority.

Departmental appeal against an AAC order under section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act was held not maintainable because the appellate remedy under section 24(2) was confined to orders under section 23 and no other provision authorised such an appeal. Rectification of the earlier deletion of jewellery from taxable wealth was also rejected because section 35 permits correction only of an obvious mistake, not a debatable issue requiring further inquiry or interpretation. The retrospective amendment to section 5(1)(viii) and later explanations made the jewellery question one of statutory construction, so the original deletion could not be treated as a mistake apparent from the record.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Department could maintain an appeal before the Tribunal against the AAC's order dropping proceedings initiated under section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act. (ii) Whether the AAC's earlier deletion of the value of jewellery from the assessee's taxable wealth was a mistake apparent from the record so as to justify rectification under section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act.

Issue (i): Whether the Department could maintain an appeal before the Tribunal against the AAC's order dropping proceedings initiated under section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act.

Analysis: The appellate remedy available to the Department under section 24(2) was confined to orders passed by the AAC under section 23. An order made by the AAC while dealing with rectification proceedings under section 35 did not fall within that category. The Wealth-tax Act also contained no other provision authorising a departmental appeal to the Tribunal against an order passed under section 35.

Conclusion: The departmental appeals were not maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the AAC's earlier deletion of the value of jewellery from the assessee's taxable wealth was a mistake apparent from the record so as to justify rectification under section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act.

Analysis: Rectification under section 35 was limited to an obvious and patent mistake, not one requiring investigation or a long-drawn process of reasoning. The effect of the retrospective amendment to section 5(1)(viii) and the later insertion of explanations created a debatable question as to the scope of the exclusion of jewellery and its application to the relevant assessment years. Since the issue required examination of the nature of the ornaments and the reach of the amended provisions, the original deletion could not be treated as an apparent mistake.

Conclusion: The AAC was justified in dropping the rectification proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The Department's challenge failed both on maintainability and on merits, and the assessee's relief against inclusion of the jewellery value remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification is impermissible where the alleged error depends on a debatable interpretation of the statute or on questions requiring further inquiry, and no departmental appeal lies unless the statute expressly provides for it.

---