https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192543 An apparent omission of super-tax and surcharge from the original assessment was treated as a mistake evident from the record, so rectification under section 35 was proper and resort to reopening under section 34 was unnecessary. The limitation in section 35 was held to govern only the making of the rectification order, not the consequential notice of demand issued under sub-section (4), which was treated as a notice under section 29. Accordingly, the rectification and the demand notice were upheld, and the assessee's objections on jurisdiction and limitation failed. en-us Tue, 10 Sep 1957 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Jun 2017 16:48:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192543 An apparent omission of super-tax and surcharge from the original assessment was treated as a mistake evident from the record, so rectification under section 35 was proper and resort to reopening under section 34 was unnecessary. The limitation in section 35 was held to govern only the making of the rectification order, not the consequential notice of demand issued under sub-section (4), which was treated as a notice under section 29. Accordingly, the rectification and the demand notice were upheld, and the assessee's objections on jurisdiction and limitation failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 10 Sep 1957 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192543