Judgment :- 1. The prayer in the petition is worded as follows: "For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, call for records and quash the order of the First Additional Income-tax Officer, Kozhikode (respondent) under S.35 (1) of the Income-tax Act in G I. No. 697-k dated 13-3-1956 and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit." 2. In Ext. D, the order impugned, the respondent said: "The assessee was taken on file for the first time for 1947-48 assessment. Previously the business was being conducted by the Hindu Undivided Family of M/s. Moothora-kutty & Sons till 31-3-1946 and from 1-4-1946 partition in the family was recognised. Hence the assessee who is a member of the family got half share in the business and became a new assessee from 1947-48 assessment. He filed a voluntary return of income on 10-9-1947. But, he did not file an estimate of his total income and pay advance tax as required by S.18-A (3) of the Act for, 1947-48. The income returned was Rs. 42173 and income assessed is Rs. 64602. Thus there is default under S.18-A (3) of the Act, In the original assessment completed on 26-3-1952 penal interest was omitted to be levied by mistake. This is a mistake apparent on the record, rectifiable under S.35 (1) of the Act. Accordingly the assessee's objections against such rectification were invited in this office letter dated 4-2-1956. The assessee in his reply dated 18-2-1956 has stated that this is not a mistake apparent on the record and the Income-tax Officer has no power to review his own assessment. But levy of penal interest is mandatory and omission to levy the interest is a mistake apparent on the record. Hence the assessee's objection is overruled. The original order of assessment is accordingly rectified under S.35 (1) of the Act"; and directed the petitioner to pay by way of penal interest a sum of Rs. 5308-9-0 on or before 25-3-1956. 3. Hence the assessee's objection is overruled. The original order of assessment is accordingly rectified under S.35 (1) of the Act"; and directed the petitioner to pay by way of penal interest a sum of Rs. 5308-9-0 on or before 25-3-1956. 3. Sub-section (1) of S.35 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, omitting the provisos thereto, reads as follows: The Commissioner or Appellate Assistant Commissioner may, at any time within four years from the date of any order passed by him in appeal or, in the case of the Commissioner, in revision under S.33A and the Income-tax Officer may, at any time within four years from the date of any assessment order or refund order passed by him on his own motion rectify any mistake apparent from the record of the appeal, revision, assessment or refund as the case may be and shall within the like period rectify any such mistake which has been brought to his notice by an assessee". 4. The only question for consideration is whether the imposition of penal interest by Ext. D is the rectification of a mistake apparent from the record of the assessment or not. The contention of the respondent is stated as follows in his affidavit dated 28-8-1957: "The petitioner was assessed to income-tax for the year 1947-48 as alleged in his affidavit. When completing the assessment, the failure of the petitioner to file estimate of his total income, and pay advance tax under S.18-A, and the consequent liability for penal interest, were, by an oversight, omitted to be considered. Since the mistake was patent, action was taken under S.35 of the Income-tax Act, and the mistake was rectified by the order dated 13-3-1956, impugned herein. (paragraph 2) The provisions of S.18-A are mandatory in nature and the omission to give effect to them when the requisite conditions were present, is purely an accidental mistake apparent on the face of the records which can be rectified under S.35". (paragraph 4) 5. A mistake is an omission made not by design, but by mischance (5 L. J.Q.B. 73) and a'mistake apparent' is a mistake that is manifest, plain or obvious, a mistake that can be realised without a debate or a dissertation. There can be no doubt that a clerical or arithmetical error would certainly amount to a mistake apparent from the record. There can be no doubt that a clerical or arithmetical error would certainly amount to a mistake apparent from the record. It is equally clear that S.35 will not enable a general revision or review of the orders passed (1948) 16 I. T. R.59) or a reconsideration of the factual conclusions reached in a case. 6. In A. I. R.1952 Bombay 287, Chagla, C. J., said: "Now the power is undoubtedly a limited power, it is not a power of revision or review, but it is limited to correcting only those mistakes which are apparent on the record. A mistake must be patent on the record; it must not be a mistake which can be discovered by a process of elucidation or argument, or debate". 7. Sub-section (3) of S.18 A provides: "Any person who has not hitherto been assessed shall, before the 15th day of March in each financial year, if his total income of the period which would be the previous year for an assessment for the financial year next following is likely to exceed the maximum amount not chargeable to tax in his case by two thousand five hundred rupees, send to the Income-tax Officer an estimate of the tax payable by him on that part of his income to which the provisions of S.18 do not apply of the said previous year calculated in the manner laid down in sub-section (1), and shall pay the amount, on such of the dates specified in that sub-section as have not expired, by instalments which may be revised according to the proviso to sub-section (2)"; and sub-section (8) of S.18A: "Where, on making the regular assessment, the Income-tax Officer finds that no payment of tax has been made in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this section, interest calculated in the manner laid down in sub-section (6) shall be added to the tax as determined on the basis of the regular assessment". It is admitted that the provisions of sub-section (3) have not been complied with and it is evident from sub-section (8) that the Income-tax Officer had the duty to add to the tax interest calculated in the manner laid down in subsection (6). The failure to discharge this duty in Ext, D is, as I understand it, nothing more or other than an obvious error apparent from the record of the assessment. 8. The failure to discharge this duty in Ext, D is, as I understand it, nothing more or other than an obvious error apparent from the record of the assessment. 8. Such being my conclusion this petition should fail and has to be dismissed. Judgment accordingly. 9. In the circumstances of the case I leave the parties to bear their respective costs.