M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of preliminary hearing after notice to respondent. The Counsel for parties have been heard. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is a Coffee Planter and an assessee under the Karnataka agricultural Income Tax Act 1967, (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). In accordance with the return filed by him, he was assessed by the Agricultural Income Tax officer-respondent, in accordance with the order dated 31-8-1978. Thereafter, by a notice dated 16-8-1980 the respondent-Agricultural Income Tax officer, I Circle, Chickamagalur, called upon the petitioner to show cause why the order of assessment concluded on 31-8-1978 for the assessment year 1978-79 should not be rectified in respect of four matters. In the notice, it was indicated that depreciation had not been calculated correctly, as a result of which, a sum of rs. 8,157 came to be allowed on the declared value of the car at Rs. 32,614 at 25 per cent of such value whereas the assessee -petitioner was entitled to only 10 per cent depreciation. Secondly, the assessee was intimated that the sale proceeds of the car belonging to 'the estate sold and the profits therefrom had not been subjected to tax. Therefore, it was liable to tax and the assessee should furnish the sale amount realised with proof. Thirdly, it was pointed out to the assessee that vehicle expenses allowed in the sum of Rs. 30,273-69 used for purpose of estate work, was not correct as in the previous years only half the expenditure incurred was allowed. Fourthly, it was pointed out to the assessee that rectification was required in respect of Life insurance Policy allowance of Rs, 10,000 as the same was in excess and contrary to law. The assessee was given seven days time to file his objections to the proposed rectification. The assessee by his letter dated 14th October 1980, which is at annexure-D to the petition, contended that the depreciation on the car had been correctly calculated; that there was no profit on the sale of the old car; that the car was entirely used as the estate maintenance vehicle and therefore there was nothing wrong in allowing the full expenditure on the maintenance of the car as deductible item and in so far as the Life Insurance Policy was concerned, he did not show any specific cause. ( 3 ) THEREFORE, the respondent-Agricultural Income Tax Officer passed an order of rectification under S. 37 of the act, allowing only 10 per cent depreciation on the car and also reduced the expenditure of car maintenance allowed to be deducted earlier by half, thus giving credit only to Rs. 15,136 instead of Rs. 30,273-69. He also added back the sum of Rs. 4,129 disallowing the deduction which had been permitted in the previous assessment year in respect of the car sold by the assessee in the assessment year 1977-78. Similarly, he re-calculated the Life Insurance Policy rebate and added back a sum of Rs. 3,237 to the taxable income. In the result, the assessee was called upon to pay Rs. 13240 as balance of tax. Aggrieved by the rectification order which is at Annexure-E to the petition, the petitioner has approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution inter alia contending that the order is patently erroneous and without jurisdiction and therefore it is liable to be set aside. ( 4 ) SRI G. Sarangan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has urged that in terms of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Agricultural Income Tax Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), he is entitled to 30 per cent depreciation under Rules 3 and 4 of the aforementioned rules. It is his case that under Rule 3 part (C) of the Rules, motor cars and motor cycles were allowed 10 per cent depreciation, while under Rule 4 (3) of the Rules a further deduction under clause (e) of S. 5 of the Act at 20 per cent of the cost of new machinery or new plant installed after March, 1956, was also deductible and therefore instead of revenue being prejudiced by allowing 25 per cent deduction only in the original assessment order, it was the assessee who had been prejudiced and the rectification order in that behalf was certainly in error. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel's contention is liable to be upheld on the plain language of Rule 3 and sub-rule (3) of rule. 4 of the Rules. However, Smt Vanaja, learned High Court Government pleader appearing,for respondent has contended that a motor car is only entitled to 10 per cent as indicated at item 14 in Part-C of Rule 3 of the Rules. 4 of the Rules. However, Smt Vanaja, learned High Court Government pleader appearing,for respondent has contended that a motor car is only entitled to 10 per cent as indicated at item 14 in Part-C of Rule 3 of the Rules. Though the argument looks attractive, on a closer examination, it is seen that the language in sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 of the Rules clearly indicate that further depreciation of 20 percent is available to new machinery purchased after 31st march, 1956, and in Part (C) of Rule 3 of the Rules, "other machinery and plant" car is the first item mentioned. Therefore, a car apart from being a car in itself, for the purpose of interpretation must also be held to be machinery and other plant as classified by the Rules themselves. In that view of the matter, the assessee's contention is well founded. The car which is purchased in the assessment year is entitled to 10 plus 20 percent depreciation, that is, 30 per cent deduction and the revenue has not been prejudiced and the respondent was clearly in error in law in taking the view that only 10 per cent deduction was permissible. ( 6 ) IT was next contended by Mr. Sarangan that the assessee did not disclose the sale price of the car in the relevant assessment year 1978-79 which ought to have been treated as profit accrued to the estate clearly fell, if true, within the ambit of correction available to the Officer under S. 36 of the Act, as an escaped income and was not a matter for rectification under S. 37 of the Act. If the income from the sale of the car was not disclosed in the return, it was a clear case of suppression of an item of the income of the assessee. That fell within the procedure prescribed under S. 36 of the Act and was not a matter for rectification under S. 37 of the Act, I need not , say more than this because the assessee in his reply to the show cause notice had declared that he did not make any profit by the sale of the car and therefore the question of there being any income does not arise. The respondent was clearly in error in following the novel method of calculating the depreciation allowed on the car in the previous assessment year and adding that back to the income in the rectification proceedings. That was totally uncalled for and without jurisdiction having regard to the plain language of S. 37 of the act. ( 7 ) MR. Sarangan next contended that expenditure on the vehicle which was incurred exclusively for the maintenance of the estate was correctly allowed after full knowledge of such disclosure and therefore by any stretch of imagination the mistake was not an apparent error on the face of the record, merely because the respondent found from the record of the previous year's assessment that only half the expenditure had been allowed in that previous year. In any event, the rectification could not be made on the basis of other records than the records pertaining to the relevant assessment year. It was next contended that the rectification could not be founded on extraneous material disclosed from other records which did not form part of the records in the relevant assessment year. On both grounds urged, the assessee should succeed. If knowingly, the Income Tax officer had allowed the full expenditure as deductible expenditure, it cannot be said later that he should have allowed only half. He did so with a knowledge that the vehicle was used exclusively for the maintenance of estate work. If it was a mistake due to his negligence and such a mistake on the part of the officer cannot be rectified as an apparent error of law and therefore there is no justification to look at the previous year's records of the assessment and rely upon that material to come to the conclusion that only half the expenditure should have been allowed. It is well settled principle now that rectification of an apparent error of law or fact must be apparent from the records of the particular case itself and not on the basis of facts discovered from other sources. In that view of the matter, the rectification in disallowing half the expenditure of maintenance of the car is also without jurisdiction or as a result of illegal exercise of jurisdiction. In that view of the matter, the rectification in disallowing half the expenditure of maintenance of the car is also without jurisdiction or as a result of illegal exercise of jurisdiction. ( 8 ) IN so far as the rectification relating to the amount deducted towards life Insurance Policy premium, the learned Counsel for the assessee, fairly conceded that there was an error in allowing rs. 10,000 as the assessee was entitled in terms of S. 5-A of the Act in the sum of rs. 7,000 and 40 per cent of the sum in excess of Rs. 10,000 alone and no more. It is admitted that the assessee paid Rs. 13,691-05 as premia in the relevant assessment year and in terms of S. 5-A (a) (c) of the Act he is entitled to Rs. 7,000 deduction plus 40 per cent of the amount by which such aggregate exceeds of Rs. 10,000. The 40 per cent of Rs. 3,691 is Rs. 1,582-05. Therefore, the assesse is entitled to a deduction in respect of Life Insurance Premia at Rs. 8,432 and no more. That being an apparent error of law, the respondent had jurisdiction to rectify the same under s. 37 of the Act. ( 9 ) IN accordance with the conclusions reached by me above, the rectification order is set aside in respect of all items except the item relating to Insurance Policy. The respondent shall issue notice of demand for such tax as may be found due by the assessee in respect of the excess deduction given to the payment of Insurance Premia to the extent indicated above. ( 10 ) IN the result, rule will accordingly issue and be made absolute. ( 11 ) SMT. Vanaja, learned High court Government Pleader is permitted to file her memo of appearance within two weeks from to-day. There will be no. order as to costs. --- *** --- .