Clerical tax demand errors can be rectified under the second proviso to Section 161 without the six-month limit.

A clerical or arithmetical mistake in a tax demand, arising from an accidental slip or omission, may be rectified under the second proviso to Section 161. The six-month limitation in the first proviso does not govern such a rectification request. The assessee was therefore permitted to file an application under the second proviso, and the authority must consider it on merits without applying the first proviso's time bar. No coercive recovery action is to be taken until that application is decided, if filed within the stipulated time.

---

---

Issues: Whether a tax demand alleged to contain an arithmetical mistake could be rectified under the second proviso to Section 161, and whether the limitation period in the first proviso would apply to such rectification.

Analysis: The dispute was confined to a claimed numerical error resulting in an excessive demand. The Court held that the alleged mistake was a mere clerical or arithmetical error arising from an accidental slip or omission, and that such a case falls within the second proviso to Section 161. It was therefore open to the assessee to seek rectification, and the restriction of six months under the first proviso would not govern such an application.

Conclusion: The petitioner was granted liberty to move an application under the second proviso to Section 161, which the authority is required to consider on merits without applying the limitation under the first proviso. No coercive action is to be taken until disposal of that application, if filed within the stipulated time.

---