Section 154 rectification cannot disallow depreciation on non-compete fee when the issue is debatable and pending before higher courts.

Rectification under section 154 is confined to an obvious and patent mistake apparent from the record; it cannot be used where the issue is debatable or requires detailed reasoning. The allowability of depreciation on non-compete fee had conflicting judicial views and was pending before higher courts, so the attempted reversal of earlier relief was not justified. The rectification order was therefore not sustainable, and the matter was restored for fresh decision after the pending proceedings concluded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the power of rectification under section 154 could be invoked to disallow depreciation on non-compete fee when the allowability of such depreciation was debatable and pending consideration before higher courts.

Analysis: Rectification under section 154 is confined to an obvious and patent mistake apparent from the record. Where the point in dispute requires detailed reasoning and is capable of more than one view, it cannot be treated as a mistake apparent from the record. The allowance of depreciation on non-compete fee had already been the subject of conflicting judicial views, and the relevant question was pending consideration in higher proceedings. In these circumstances, invocation of section 154 to reverse the earlier relief was not justified.

Conclusion: The rectification order could not be sustained on the basis that the issue was debatable, and the matter was restored for fresh decision after the outcome of the pending proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: A debatable question of law, or one requiring a long-drawn process of reasoning, does not constitute a mistake apparent from the record for the purposes of rectification.

---