https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165177 Rectification under Section 35 is confined to patent mistakes apparent from the record and cannot be used as a review or revision power. Where the assessment order's omission to levy penal interest under Section 18A(6) could reasonably be attributed either to a failure to apply the law or to a lawful exercise of discretion under the proviso, the omission is not a clear apparent error. The retrospective fifth proviso and Rule 48 required the proviso to operate fully from the earlier date, so the officer could have waived or reduced interest. Rectification was therefore not competent. en-us Tue, 01 Apr 1958 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 May 2014 13:00:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165177 Rectification under Section 35 is confined to patent mistakes apparent from the record and cannot be used as a review or revision power. Where the assessment order's omission to levy penal interest under Section 18A(6) could reasonably be attributed either to a failure to apply the law or to a lawful exercise of discretion under the proviso, the omission is not a clear apparent error. The retrospective fifth proviso and Rule 48 required the proviso to operate fully from the earlier date, so the officer could have waived or reduced interest. Rectification was therefore not competent. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 01 Apr 1958 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165177