Rectification cannot be used to add omitted interest where the issue depends on inquiry and statutory discretion.

Rectification power under section 35 could be used only for a patent mistake apparent from the record, not for revision or review. Whether interest under section 18A(6) was chargeable depended on discretionary reduction or waiver and satisfaction of rule 48 conditions, which required inquiry and debate; the omission to levy interest was therefore not an apparent error. Section 18A(8) did not change that position because interest could be added only in the manner prescribed by section 18A(6). The rectification order was held to be without jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Income-tax Officer could validly invoke the rectification power to impose interest that had been omitted from the original assessment, on the ground that the omission was an error apparent on the face of the record.

Analysis: The rectification jurisdiction under section 35 is confined to correcting mistakes that are patent from the record and does not extend to revision or review. Whether interest under section 18A(6) was chargeable depended on the statutory discretion to reduce or waive interest and on satisfaction of the conditions in rule 48, matters that could not be resolved without investigation, elucidation, and debate. An omission to charge interest was therefore not, by itself, an apparent error on the face of the record. The mandatory language of section 18A(8) did not alter that position, because interest could be added only in the manner laid down in section 18A(6).

Conclusion: The rectification order was without jurisdiction and the challenge succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification is permissible only for a mistake that is manifest on the face of the record; where determining the alleged mistake requires enquiry into facts or the exercise of discretion, the power of rectification cannot be used.

---