https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6890 Rectification power under section 35 could be used only for a patent mistake apparent from the record, not for revision or review. Whether interest under section 18A(6) was chargeable depended on discretionary reduction or waiver and satisfaction of rule 48 conditions, which required inquiry and debate; the omission to levy interest was therefore not an apparent error. Section 18A(8) did not change that position because interest could be added only in the manner prescribed by section 18A(6). The rectification order was held to be without jurisdiction. en-us Thu, 23 Dec 1965 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6890 Rectification power under section 35 could be used only for a patent mistake apparent from the record, not for revision or review. Whether interest under section 18A(6) was chargeable depended on discretionary reduction or waiver and satisfaction of rule 48 conditions, which required inquiry and debate; the omission to levy interest was therefore not an apparent error. Section 18A(8) did not change that position because interest could be added only in the manner prescribed by section 18A(6). The rectification order was held to be without jurisdiction. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 23 Dec 1965 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6890