Conflicting judicial views bar rectification for a debatable exemption issue under the mistake apparent from the record standard.

Rectification was impermissible where the underlying issue concerned exemption for the value of a residential house belonging to an HUF and the legal position was debatable. Because conflicting High Court decisions existed, the question could not be treated as a mistake apparent from the record. A point of law on which judicial views differ is not an obvious error capable of correction by rectification under section 61, and the assessee succeeded on that issue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rectification order under section 61 was valid when the question of exemption of the residential house was debatable and supported by conflicting High Court decisions.

Analysis: The dispute turned on whether there was a mistake apparent from the record so as to justify rectification. The issue of exemption in respect of the value of the residential house belonging to the HUF had already been the subject of differing judicial views, and the matter was covered by the decision relied on by the assessee. Where the legal position is unsettled and contrary decisions exist, the matter cannot be treated as an obvious mistake fit for rectification under section 61.

Conclusion: The rectification under section 61 was not permissible, and the assessee was entitled to succeed on this issue.

Ratio Decidendi: A point of law on which there are conflicting judicial decisions is not a mistake apparent from the record and cannot be corrected by rectification.

---