SENGUPTA, J. ( 1 ) AT the instance of the Commissioner, West Bengal-III, the following question of law has been referred to this court under Section 256 (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1965-66 :"whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to Explanation 1 to Rule 2 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, there was a mistake apparent from the record within the meaning of Section 13 of the said Act and whether the Income-tax Officer was entitled to make an order thereunder ?" ( 2 ) THE facts are that in the original surtax assessment order passed on February 28, 1967, the Income-tax Officer included a sum of Rs. 18 lakhs in the capital computation. Subsequently, action was taken under Section 13 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, on the ground that the said sum of Rs. 18 lakhs was wrongly included in the capital computation and the mistake was apparent from the record. After a show-cause notice to the assessee, the Income-tax Officer passed an order under Section 13 rectifying the mistake. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the Income-tax Officer cannot invoke Section 13 simply because he had an opinion different from that of the Income-tax Officer who passed the original assessment. Following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of T. S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros. , [1971] 82 ITR 50, he cancelled the order of the Income-tax Officer made under Section 13. ( 3 ) IN the appeal before the Tribunal, the Departmental representative submitted that in the original assessment, the sum of Rs. 18 lakhs was wrongly included in the capital base and that that was an obvious mistake of law. The said mistake could be rectified under Section 13. The Tribunal held that the points raised by the assessee are highly debatable points. It is not a patent mistake which can be rectified under Section 13 and, accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Department. ( 4 ) THE Income-tax Officer who rectified the assessment was of the view that the sum of Rs. 18 lakhs being bonus shares issued on capitalisation of reserves credited by writing up of fixed assets has been wrongly included in the capital computation for arriving at the standard deduction allowable from the chargeable profits. ( 4 ) THE Income-tax Officer who rectified the assessment was of the view that the sum of Rs. 18 lakhs being bonus shares issued on capitalisation of reserves credited by writing up of fixed assets has been wrongly included in the capital computation for arriving at the standard deduction allowable from the chargeable profits. According to him, in terms of the Explanation to Rule 2 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, the said amount should not have been included for the purpose of capital computation. ( 5 ) THE contention of the assessee was that the bonus shares amounting to Rs. 18 lakhs were issued by writing up the fixed assets in 1948 and in 1961 those assets were written down from the general reserve and other reserves and the result was that the reserves came down by the said amount of Rs. 18 lakhs. Thus, materially, there was no writing up of the fixed assets in the year 1961. It was further submitted by him that on the first day of the accounting period, the capital reserve had increased by revaluation of the assets. According to him, Explanation 1 to Rule 2 of the Second Schedule was not attracted in the present case. ( 6 ) FROM the narration of facts, it would be evident that there was no patent mistake which was to be rectified under Section 13. The original Income-tax Officer considered the issue and included the sum of Rs. 18 lakhs in the capital base. The successor Income-tax Officer due to change of opinion sought to rectify the order under Section 13. It is now well settled that if the points at issue are debatable or if there be any two conceivable opinions on the question or if the issues relate to the interpretation of the provisions of the Act, the Income-tax Officer cannot have any jurisdiction to rectify the mistake under Section 13. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no mistake apparent from the record to be rectified under Section 13. ( 7 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, we answer the question in this reference in the negative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs.