Arijit Pasayat ( 1 ) IN these two cases, at the instance of assessee the following question has been referred for the opinion of this Court under Section 256 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-C (in short the Tribunal): "whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the relief under Section 80m given to the assessee originally was a mistake rectifiable by the Income-tax officer under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961?"above being the position, our judgment shall govern each of the two cases, i. e. ITR 128 and 129/78. ( 2 ) FACTUAL position as indicated in the statement of case is as follows: For the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-1970, assesee, a private limited company, filed its returns of income showing loss of Rs. 54055. 00 and Rs. 1,14,945. 00 respectively, in respect of incomes from (a) interest on securities, (b) house property, (c) business of running hotels at Agra and Kasauli and plying of taxis in U. P. (d) dividents and (e) capitals gains. Assessments were completed for the two years on 31. 12. 1971 and 12. 1. 1972 respectively Computation of income for two years was done as follows: "1968-69 (a) Interest on securities 135/- (b) Income from house property 21847/- (c) Business (loss) 89313/-* (d) Income by way of dividends 59435/- Less Deducation under section 80m @ 50% 35661/- 23774/- (e) Long term capital gains 14994/- Balance loss to be set off: 50545/- *business loss of Rs. 90030. 00off set by profit under Section 41 (2) of Rs 1717/- **in the above calculation there was a mistake in that item (a) and (b) were left out of account due to oversight. Development rebate of Rs. 16335. 00 had also been deducted in working out the business loss. "1969-70 (a) Interest on securities. 143/- (b) Income from house property 20028/- (c) Business (loss) 78364/-* (d) Income by way of dividends 74001/- Less Exempt under Section 801 500/- Exempt under Section 80m @ 60% 44600/- 29401/- 49572/- Balanceloss: 29002/- Loss carried forward from assessment year 1968-69 50545/- 79607 * There was a mistake in the computation in that dividends added back for separate consideration was taken as Rs. 7400. 00 intead of Rs. 74001. 00 "the figure takes into account depreciation of Rs. 53249. 7400. 00 intead of Rs. 74001. 00 "the figure takes into account depreciation of Rs. 53249. 00 and Dev. Rebate of Rs. 6605. 00 wrong mentioned in the assessment order as Rs. 53247. 00 and respectively. It also includes a profit of Rs. 4060. 00 assessable under Section 41 (2 ). "on 22nd March, 1973 orders under Section 154 of the Act in respect of both the assessment years were passed by the Income-tax Officer. He was of the opinion that deduction permitted under Section 80m had been wrongly, computed while making original assessment. Before passing order under Section 354, the assessee was granted an opportunity to have its say. Objections were filed by the assessee questioning legality of proceedings and the proposed manner of computation. Assessing Officer did not accept the stand and proceeded to pass orders under Section 154 of the Act and income was computed in the following manner for the two years: - 1969-69 (a) Interested on securities Rs 135. 00 (o) House property income Rs 21,847. 00 (c) Profit u/s 41 (2) Rsl,717. 00 (d) Income from dividends Rs 59,435. 00 Rs83,134. 00 (e) Less Business Loss Rs78,139. 00 Rs 4,995. 00 Less Dev Rebate Rs4,995. 00 Nil (f) Income from capital gains Rs. 14,994. 00 * This figure is due to variation in the correct figure of deprecation (+ Rs. 444. 00 and exclusion- (Rs. 16335. 00) Thus, the previous figure of Rs. 90030. 00 becomes Rs. 78. 139. 00 ** Balance of Development rebate of Rs. 11360. 00 (sic) is allowed to be carried forward. "1969-70 (a) Interest on securities Rs. 143. 00 (b) House property income Rs. 200. 28. 00 (c) Income from dividends Rs. 74. 001. 00 Rs. 94172. 00 (d) Less Business Lose Rs. 104723. 00 Rs. 1055. 00 (e) Profit under Section 41 (2 ). Rs. 4,060. 00 Net Loss: Rs. 6491. 00 * This corrects the figure of Rs. 7400. 00 into Rs. 74001. 00 excludes Rs. 4060. 00 under Section 41 (2) and takes into account a depreciation of Rs. 56902. 00 ** The development rebate of Rs. 6605. 00 pertaining to this year and Rs. 11360. 00 pertaining to 1968-69 are directed to be carried forward. Assessee challenged the orders passed under Section 154 before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (in short, the AAC ). 4060. 00 under Section 41 (2) and takes into account a depreciation of Rs. 56902. 00 ** The development rebate of Rs. 6605. 00 pertaining to this year and Rs. 11360. 00 pertaining to 1968-69 are directed to be carried forward. Assessee challenged the orders passed under Section 154 before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (in short, the AAC ). The said authority was of the view that the issue as to whether the relief allowable under Section 80m was computed correctly at the time of original assessment is not an issue which can be treated to be a mistake apparent from the record. He was of the view that interpretation of Section 80m raises issues which of controversial nature. That being the position, he cancelled the orders. Revenue carried the matter in appeals before the Tribunal. It was urged before the Tribunal by the Revenue that the mistake in computation were clearly discernible from record and orders under Section 154 of the Act had been rightly passed. Assessee s stand, on the other hand, was that the problem was not free from difficulty and needed interpretation of Section 80a and 80b (5) and 80m. That being the position Section 154 had no application. Tribunal proceeded to examine computation as done by 1to on merits. After referring to the definitions of various provisions it came to hold that the second stage in the process of computation related to arriving at figures of gross total income. It went on to compute the deductions under Section SOL and 80m and it did not find any substance in the plea of the assessee that controversial issues were involved. The orders of the Income-tax Officer were retired by setting aside the order passed by AAC in the first appeal. On being moved for reference, the question as set out above has been referred. ( 3 ) THERE is no appearance on behalf of the assessee in spite of notice. We have heard the learned counsel for the Revenue. Since reference has been made by the Tribunal, we have taken up the cases for hearing on merits, notwithstanding assessee s non-appearance. ( 4 ) COUNSEL for the Revenue submitted that what would be the computation under Section 80m is a matter of pure arithmetic and calculation. We have heard the learned counsel for the Revenue. Since reference has been made by the Tribunal, we have taken up the cases for hearing on merits, notwithstanding assessee s non-appearance. ( 4 ) COUNSEL for the Revenue submitted that what would be the computation under Section 80m is a matter of pure arithmetic and calculation. Even if some analysis of the provisions is called for in this regard, that does not affect the powers conferred under Section 154 of the Act. ( 5 ) A hare look at Section 154 of the Act makes it clear that a mistake apparent from the record " is rectifiable. In order to attract the application of Section 154, the mistake must exist and the same must be apparent from the record. The power to rectify the mistake, however, does not cover cases where a revision or review of the order is intended. "mistake" means to take or understand wrongly or inaccurately, to make an error in interpreting, it is an error, a fault, a misunderstanding, a misconception. "apparent" means visible, capable of being seen, obvious, plain. It means "open to view, visible, evident, appears, appearing as real and true, conspicuous, manifest, obvious, seeming. " A mistake which can be rectified under Section 154 is one which is patent, which is obvious and whose discovery is not dependent on argument or elaboration. In our view amendment of an order does not mean obliteration of the order originally passed and its substitution by a new order. What the revenue intends to do in the present case is precisely the substitution of the order which according to us is not permissible under the provisions of Section 154 and, therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that there was mistake apparent on the face of the record. In order to bring in application under Section 154, the mistake must be "apparent" from the record. Section 154 does not enable an order to be reversed by revision or by review, but permits only some error which is apparent on the face of the record to be corrected. Where an error is far from self-evident, it ceases to be an apparent error. It is, no doubt, true that a mistake capable of being rectified under Section 154 is ot confined to clerical or arithmetical mistakes. Where an error is far from self-evident, it ceases to be an apparent error. It is, no doubt, true that a mistake capable of being rectified under Section 154 is ot confined to clerical or arithmetical mistakes. On the other hand, it does not cover any mistake which may be discovered by a complicated process of investigation, argument or proof. As observed by the Apex Court in Master Construction Co (P) Ltd v. State of Orissa (1966] 17 STC 360, an error which is apparent from record should be one which is not an error which depends for its discovery on elaborate arguments on questions of fact or law. Similar view was also expressed in Satyanarayan Laxminarrayan Hegde v. Mullikarajun Bhavanappa Tirumale, AIR 1960 SC 137 . It is to be noted that the language used in Order XLVII, Rule 1, of the Code or Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the CPC) is different from the language used in Section 154 of the Act. Power is given to various authorities to rectify and mistake "apparent from record" under Section 154 of the Act. In the CPC, the words are "an error apparent on the face of the record" The two provisions do not mean the same thing. The power of Tribunal in Section 154 to rectify "any mistake apparent from the record" is undoubtedly not more than that of the High Court to entertain a writ petition on the basis of "an error apparent on the face of the record. (See. T. S. Baldwin /to v. Volkart Brothers (l97j ). 82 IT4 50 (SC) "mistake" is an ordinary word hut in taxation laws, it has a special significance. It is not an arithmetical error which, after a judicious probe into the record from which it is supposed to emanate are discerned. The word "mistake" is inherently indefinite in scope, as to what may be a mistake for one may not be one for another. It is mostly subjective and the dividing line in border areas is thin and indiscernible. It is something which a duly and judiciously instructed mind can find out from the record. In order to attract the power to rectify under Section 154, it is not sufficient if there is merely a mistake in the order sought to be rectified. The mistake to be rectified must be one apparent from the record. It is something which a duly and judiciously instructed mind can find out from the record. In order to attract the power to rectify under Section 154, it is not sufficient if there is merely a mistake in the order sought to be rectified. The mistake to be rectified must be one apparent from the record. A decision on a debatable point of law or a disputed question of fact is not a mistake apparent from the record. The plain meaning of the word "apparent" is that it must be something which appears to be so ex facie and it is incapable of argument or debate. It, therefore, follows that a decision on a debatable point of law or fact or failure to apply the law to a set of facts which remains to be investigated cannot be corrected by way of rectifications. On the facts of the present ease we find that there was no mistake apparent from the record which could be rectified under Section 154 of the Act. We find that as the Tribunal proceeded to deal with the matter as if it was dealing with an appeal regarding computation of income. It referred to various provisions to work out the details. It is to be noted that in the order under Section 154 of the Income-tax Officer observed that in his opinion Section 71 is not relevant to the provision (80m) regarding allowability of deductions mentioned in Chapter VIA. On the other hand, Tribunal while working out the figures observed in para 7 and 8 of the order as follows: "7. We think that the first step towards the application of Section 80l and 80m is the determination of the gross total income for which all we have to do is to compute the total income as it would be before making the deductions under Section 80l and 80m, the first step would be to classify the items of income and losses under the various heads. This presents no difficulty whatever. The computation under Section 14 will be as follows for the two assessment year in question: Head of Income 1968-69 1969-70 Rs. Rs. (a) Interest on securities 135. 00 143. 00 (b) Income from house property 21,847. 00 20,028. 00 (c) Profits and gains of business or profession 76,422. 00 1,00,663. 00 (d) Capital Gains. 14,994. 00 Nil (e) Income from other sources (Dividends) 59,435. Rs. (a) Interest on securities 135. 00 143. 00 (b) Income from house property 21,847. 00 20,028. 00 (c) Profits and gains of business or profession 76,422. 00 1,00,663. 00 (d) Capital Gains. 14,994. 00 Nil (e) Income from other sources (Dividends) 59,435. 00 74,001. 00 (ii) Now we come to the second stage of arriving at the figure of gross total income. For assessment year 1968-69, see 71 (2) is attracted. The loss of Rs. 76,422. 00 is first set off against items (a), (b) and (c) having a surplus of Rs. 4995. 00 and deducting development rebate, there is a resultant Nil figure. This leaves the figure of capital gains alone (before relief under Section 80t) as the figure of gross total income. But this amount of capital gain before 80t relief is not available and we shall, therefore, refer to it as the gross capital gains. So far as 1968-69 is concerned, the position is very simple for the gross total income is a negative figure since the busness loss is so heavy as to remain unabsorbed wholly by the income derived by the assessee under various heads. 8. Now we have to allow the reliefs under Sections 80t and 80m. In doing so we must bear in mind that Section 80r (2) contains a mandate that the aggregations of the deductions under Chapter VI-A cannot exceed the gross total income. In the assessment year 1968-69, the income tax officer has to consider deduction under Section 80t and 80m, he has allowed the former and so the deduction under Section 80m cannot exceed Rs. 14,994. 00 (which is the figure of gross total income minus Section 80t relief ). In the assessment year 1969-70, the gross total income being Nil, there can be deduction under Section 80t and 80m at all. "it is, therefore, clear that while ITO ruled out application of Section 71, Tribunal proceeded on the footing that for the assessment year 1968-69, Section 71 (2) is attracted. That being the position, the Tribunal was clearly in error in holding that no debatable issues were involved thereby permitting application of Section 154 of the Act to the facts of the case. In the background of legal propositions, which we have analysed, inevitable conclusion is that so-called mistakes were not of the nature covered by Section 154 of the Act. In the background of legal propositions, which we have analysed, inevitable conclusion is that so-called mistakes were not of the nature covered by Section 154 of the Act. Our answer to the question is, therefore, in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.