https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190219 An omission in an assessment that is apparent from the record may be rectified under section 35(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 even if the same facts may also suggest escapement under section 34(1), because the two provisions operate in different fields and may overlap. A prior rectification does not prevent a later correction of a distinct apparent mistake left uncorrected. Applying this principle, the court upheld the rectification where the return and assessment records showed income from one firm had been omitted, and it also sustained the penalty order because no separate illegality was shown once the rectification was found valid. en-us Wed, 26 Feb 1964 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Feb 2017 16:46:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190219 An omission in an assessment that is apparent from the record may be rectified under section 35(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 even if the same facts may also suggest escapement under section 34(1), because the two provisions operate in different fields and may overlap. A prior rectification does not prevent a later correction of a distinct apparent mistake left uncorrected. Applying this principle, the court upheld the rectification where the return and assessment records showed income from one firm had been omitted, and it also sustained the penalty order because no separate illegality was shown once the rectification was found valid. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 26 Feb 1964 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190219