https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191880 An omission to levy interest mandated by section 18A was a statutory error, not a matter of discretion, and therefore a mistake apparent from the record capable of rectification under section 35. The court distinguished the interest liability under section 18A(6) and section 18A(8) from the penalty provisions in section 18A(9), and rejected the argument that interest lay outside the assessment. It also held that rule 11(1) of the Merged States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1949 did not assist the assessees on the facts. The rectification was valid, the levy of interest was sustained, and the petitions were dismissed with costs. en-us Wed, 16 Apr 1958 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 29 Apr 2017 17:55:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191880 An omission to levy interest mandated by section 18A was a statutory error, not a matter of discretion, and therefore a mistake apparent from the record capable of rectification under section 35. The court distinguished the interest liability under section 18A(6) and section 18A(8) from the penalty provisions in section 18A(9), and rejected the argument that interest lay outside the assessment. It also held that rule 11(1) of the Merged States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1949 did not assist the assessees on the facts. The rectification was valid, the levy of interest was sustained, and the petitions were dismissed with costs. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 16 Apr 1958 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191880