Rectification cannot revisit debatable ownership and depreciation entitlement when the issue is not an error apparent on the record.

Depreciation on sprinkler equipment under the Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act could not be denied by rectification on the ground that the assessee was not the owner, because ownership under a hire-purchase arrangement was a debatable requiring examination beyond the record. The Court held that where two views were possible, the issue did not amount to an error apparent on the face of the record and could not be corrected under section 37. The rectification orders were therefore invalid and were quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether depreciation allowance on sprinkler equipment could be disallowed by rectification under section 37 of the Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957 on the ground that the assessee was not the owner of the equipment and whether such a question involved an error apparent on the record.

Analysis: Section 5(e) of the Act allowed depreciation in respect of assets that were the property of the assessee and used for earning agricultural income. The Court noted that the ownership question arising from a hire-purchase arrangement was not free from difficulty and could not be resolved merely by looking at the hire-purchase agreement alone. It required consideration of other documents and surrounding circumstances. Where two views were possible, the matter could not be treated as an error apparent on the record so as to justify rectification under section 37.

Conclusion: The rectification orders were invalid, and the assessee succeeded.

Final Conclusion: Rectification jurisdiction could not be used to revisit a debatable question on ownership and depreciation entitlement; the impugned rectification orders were quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: A debatable question requiring examination of materials beyond the record is not an error apparent on the face of the record and cannot be corrected by rectification.

---