Rectification cannot revise a debatable legal view on super-tax rate; only patent mistakes apparent from the record qualify.

Rectification under section 35 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 was confined to obvious and patent mistakes apparent from the record; it could not be used to revisit a concluded legal view on the rate of super-tax applicable to a company treated as an investment company. Where the original section 23A orders rested on a legal inference and the later orders merely substituted a different interpretation of the statutory provisions, the error was debatable rather than apparent. The rectification orders were therefore without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed, and the assessee succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Income-tax Officer could invoke rectification powers under section 35 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, to alter the rate of super-tax fixed in the original orders under section 23A on the ground that the company was an investment company.

Analysis: The original orders under section 23A had proceeded on a legal conclusion as to the character of the company for the purpose of applying the rate of super-tax. The later orders did not correct an obvious or patent mistake on the face of the record, but substituted a different legal view on a matter that required determination of the true scope and effect of the statutory provisions. A debatable question of law, or a change in the legal inference earlier drawn, does not amount to a mistake apparent from the record. Rectification under section 35 cannot be used as a substitute for appellate power.

Conclusion: The rectification orders were without jurisdiction and were liable to be quashed. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification is permissible only for an obvious and patent mistake apparent from the record, not for revising a concluded legal view on a debatable question of law.

---