https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62073 Departmental appeal against an AAC order under section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act was held not maintainable because the appellate remedy under section 24(2) was confined to orders under section 23 and no other provision authorised such an appeal. Rectification of the earlier deletion of jewellery from taxable wealth was also rejected because section 35 permits correction only of an obvious mistake, not a debatable issue requiring further inquiry or interpretation. The retrospective amendment to section 5(1)(viii) and later explanations made the jewellery question one of statutory construction, so the original deletion could not be treated as a mistake apparent from the record. en-us Mon, 16 Feb 1976 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Jan 2011 10:04:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62073 Departmental appeal against an AAC order under section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act was held not maintainable because the appellate remedy under section 24(2) was confined to orders under section 23 and no other provision authorised such an appeal. Rectification of the earlier deletion of jewellery from taxable wealth was also rejected because section 35 permits correction only of an obvious mistake, not a debatable issue requiring further inquiry or interpretation. The retrospective amendment to section 5(1)(viii) and later explanations made the jewellery question one of statutory construction, so the original deletion could not be treated as a mistake apparent from the record. Case-Laws Wealth-tax Mon, 16 Feb 1976 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62073