Rectification and partner assessment interplay under section 35: valid firm correction can trigger timely consequential partner rectification.

Rectification under section 35(1) is confined to mistakes apparent from the record and is not available for a mere change of opinion; on the stated facts, the firm's assessment rectification for additional depreciation was treated as valid. Once the firm's assessment is validly rectified, the corrected order becomes the operative assessment for section 35(5), so the partner's consequential correction is computed from that rectified order and is not barred by limitation. The omission to expressly mention section 35(1) in section 35(5) does not prevent its application, because the provision operates as part of an integrated deeming mechanism for firm and partner assessments.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether rectification of the firm's assessment under section 35(1) was valid or was merely a change of opinion; (ii) whether the consequential rectification of the partner's assessment under section 35(5) was barred by limitation reckoned from the original firm assessment; (iii) whether section 35(5) could be invoked when section 35(1) was not expressly mentioned in it.

Issue (i): whether rectification of the firm's assessment under section 35(1) was valid or was merely a change of opinion.

Analysis: Rectification under section 35(1) is confined to correction of a mistake apparent from the record and is unavailable where the revenue merely changes its opinion. On the facts, the allowance of additional depreciation was treated as an apparent error by the original assessing authority, and the reopening was not shown to be a case of a later change of view.

Conclusion: The rectification under section 35(1) was valid and was not invalidated as a mere change of opinion.

Issue (ii): whether the consequential rectification of the partner's assessment under section 35(5) was barred by limitation reckoned from the original firm assessment.

Analysis: Section 35(5) operates on the assessment or reassessment of the firm and treats the resulting correction of the partner's share as a statutory rectification. Once the firm's assessment is rectified, the corrected order becomes the operative assessment for the purpose of section 35(5), and limitation runs from that rectified order.

Conclusion: The partner's reassessment under section 35(5) was within time and not barred by limitation.

Issue (iii): whether section 35(5) could be invoked when section 35(1) was not expressly mentioned in it.

Analysis: The provision was construed as a deeming provision forming part of the integrated assessment process. Rectification of the firm's assessment under section 35(1) amounted to a reassessment for the purposes of section 35(5), and the omission to name section 35(1) expressly did not exclude its operation.

Conclusion: Section 35(5) validly covered the consequential rectification flowing from the firm's rectified assessment under section 35(1).

Final Conclusion: The firm's rectified assessment was upheld, the consequential partner assessment was held competent and timely, and the writ petition failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification is permissible only for an apparent mistake and, once a firm's assessment is validly rectified, the corrected order is the operative assessment for applying the deeming rectification mechanism against a partner under section 35(5).

---