https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64279 Rectification under section 154 is confined to a patent mistake apparent from the record and cannot be used to revisit a debatable issue. Where interest under section 139(8) had already been charged for delayed filing, the department sought to increase the levy through rectification, but the alleged excess depended on a point on which judicial opinion was divided and required further reasoning. Because the issue was not an obvious error from the record, section 154 was not available to enhance the interest levy, and the assessee succeeded. en-us Wed, 18 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 Feb 2011 18:00:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64279 Rectification under section 154 is confined to a patent mistake apparent from the record and cannot be used to revisit a debatable issue. Where interest under section 139(8) had already been charged for delayed filing, the department sought to increase the levy through rectification, but the alleged excess depended on a point on which judicial opinion was divided and required further reasoning. Because the issue was not an obvious error from the record, section 154 was not available to enhance the interest levy, and the assessee succeeded. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 18 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64279