https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190219 Rectification jurisdiction under section 35(1) was applied to correct an omission where the assessment record itself showed the assessee's omitted share of income from a distinct firm, the court holding that such omission is a mistake apparent on the record and permissible to rectify even after an earlier rectification; outcome: second rectification upheld. The court further held that proceedings under escaped-income provisions and rectification may overlap and a prior rectification does not oust jurisdiction for a separate apparent mistake. Consequentially, a penalty imposed following the valid rectified assessment was sustained. 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 Rectification jurisdiction under section 35(1) was applied to correct an omission where the assessment record itself showed the assessee's omitted share of income from a distinct firm, the court holding that such omission is a mistake apparent on the record and permissible to rectify even after an earlier rectification; outcome: second rectification upheld. The court further held that proceedings under escaped-income provisions and rectification may overlap and a prior rectification does not oust jurisdiction for a separate apparent mistake. Consequentially, a penalty imposed following the valid rectified assessment was sustained. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 26 Feb 1964 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190219