https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291454 Rectification under section 35 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 was confined to a mistake apparent from the assessment record. Because the record did not show that the five collieries belonged to the same firm, and the assessments had been accepted without protest, the later disclosure of common ownership did not create a patent error capable of rectification. The alleged mistake was not clerical or obvious on the face of the record, so the Commissioner was justified in refusing rectification and refund. The reference failed, and the answer was against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. en-us Tue, 18 Nov 1924 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Nov 2020 13:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291454 Rectification under section 35 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 was confined to a mistake apparent from the assessment record. Because the record did not show that the five collieries belonged to the same firm, and the assessments had been accepted without protest, the later disclosure of common ownership did not create a patent error capable of rectification. The alleged mistake was not clerical or obvious on the face of the record, so the Commissioner was justified in refusing rectification and refund. The reference failed, and the answer was against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 18 Nov 1924 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291454