Mistake apparent from the record justified income-tax rectification where assessment records showed an unexplained discrepancy in assessed income.

Rectification of the petitioners' assessments under section 35 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 was upheld because the assessment records showed an obvious unexplained discrepancy between income disclosed and income assessed, which constituted a mistake apparent from the record. The Court noted a doubt whether the Income-tax Officer could rely on the Appellate Tribunal's decision in the father's case, but found it unnecessary to decide that issue because the writ challenge failed in any event. The individual records alone were sufficient to justify rectification, and the enhanced assessments therefore stood.

---

---

Issues: Whether rectification of the petitioners' assessments under section 35 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, was permissible on the ground of a mistake apparent from the record.

Analysis: The record disclosed that the petitioners' income had originally been assessed on a basis that omitted amounts which, according to the later rectification order, were not brought to tax because of the earlier treatment of the father's assessment. The Court held that, although there was debate whether the Income-tax Officer could look beyond the individual assessment records and rely on the Appellate Tribunal's decision in the father's case, that question need not be finally decided. It was enough that the legal position was at least doubtful and that the petitioners could not claim writ relief on that ground. Independently, the individual assessment records themselves showed an obvious discrepancy between the income disclosed and the income actually assessed, and there was nothing on those records to explain the difference. That discrepancy was treated as a mistake apparent from the record within the meaning of section 35.

Conclusion: Rectification under section 35 was validly invoked and the challenge to the enhanced assessments failed.

---