Mistake apparent from record cannot cover a debatable inclusion of a minor's interest income in assessment.

A debatable question on whether a minor's interest income could be included in the assessee's assessment could not be treated as a mistake apparent from the record for rectification purposes. The attempted post-assessment inclusion required fresh adjudication rather than correction of an obvious error, so the rectification power could not be used to alter the assessment on that issue. The absence of an appeal against the later order did not make the matter immune from rectification proceedings, but it also did not expand rectification jurisdiction to cover a disputed point of law. The inclusion of the minor's interest income was therefore without jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether inclusion of the minor's interest income in the assessee's assessment could be treated as a mistake apparent from record so as to justify rectification.

Analysis: The interest income of the minor had not been included in the original assessment. The subsequent inclusion of that income was attempted through rectification, but the question whether such interest income was includible in the assessee's hands was held to be a highly debatable one. A debatable issue cannot be corrected as a mistake apparent from record. The fact that no appeal had been filed against the later order did not make it final in a manner that excluded recourse to rectification proceedings, but that did not enlarge the rectification power to cover a matter requiring fresh adjudication.

Conclusion: The rectification was impermissible, and the inclusion of the minor's interest income in the assessee's assessment was without jurisdiction.

---