Urban asset wealth-tax deductions limited to asset-related debts; rectification upheld for apparent assessment error.

Rectification under section 35 was held permissible because failure to apply the relevant wealth-tax computation rule in the original assessments was a mistake apparent from the record. For urban assets, only debts incurred for acquiring, improving, constructing, repairing, renewing or reconstructing those assets could be deducted directly; other liabilities could be set off only after exhausting the gross value of movable assets and other non-urban assets. As the assessee's liabilities were not shown to relate to the urban assets and did not exceed the value of the movable assets, no further deduction against the urban assets was allowed. The rectification orders were therefore upheld and the additional wealth-tax levy sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Wealth-tax Officer could invoke rectification powers under section 35 to levy additional wealth-tax on the assessee's urban assets, and whether the liabilities claimed by the assessee were deductible from the value of those urban assets for that purpose.

Analysis: The applicable rate provisions for the assessment years in question required the value of an urban asset to be determined by deducting only such debts as were incurred for acquiring, improving, constructing, repairing, renewing, or reconstructing that asset, and by allowing other deductible debts only to the extent they exceeded the aggregate gross value of assets other than urban assets. The Tribunal held that the assessee's liabilities were not shown to be debts incurred for the urban assets themselves, and that the movable assets had to be exhausted before any balance of liabilities could be set off against the urban assets. Since the liabilities never exceeded the value of the movable assets, the assessee's claim to deduct them from the urban assets was rejected. The Tribunal also held that omission to apply the relevant provision in the original assessments constituted a mistake apparent from the record, making rectification permissible under section 35.

Conclusion: The rectification orders were valid, and the levy of additional wealth-tax was sustained.

---