Write short notes on: Mistake apparent from the record

The concept of mistake apparent from the record may be understood from the below mentioned cases. In Smt. Baljeet Jolly v. CIT [2000] 113 Taxman 38 (Delhi) , it was held that "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; easily seen; obviously; plain. The plain meaning of the word "apparent is that it must be something which appears to be so ex facie and is incapable of argument or debate. The plain reading of the word "apparent' is that it must 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 rectification. In CIT v. Maruti Insurance Distribution Services Ltd. [2012] 26 taxmann.com 68/ [2013] 212 Taxman 123 (Mag.) (Delhi) , it was held that a mistake should exist and 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 understand wrongly or inaccurately; it is an error, a fault, a misunderstanding, or a misconception. "Apparent' implies something that can be seen, or is visible, obvious; plain. A mistake which can be rectified is one which is patent, obvious and whose discovery is not dependent on argument. The amendment of an order under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (corresponding to Section 420(2) under the Companies Act, 2013), therefore, does not mean entire obliteration of the order originally passed and its substitution by a new order which is not permissible. Further, where an error is far from self-evident, it ceases to be an 'apparent' error. Undoubtedly, a mistake capable of rectification under section 420(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 is not confined to clerical or arithmetical mistakes, at the same time, it does not cover any mistake which may be discovered by a complicated process of investigation, argument or proof. From the above, it is clear that the Tribunal, while exercising the power of rectification under relevant provision can recall its order in its entirety if it is satisfied that prejudice has resulted to the party which is attributable to the Tribunal's mistake, error or omission and which error is manifest error and it has nothing to do with the doctrine or concept of inherent power of review. Basic philosophy inherent in it is the universal acceptance of human fallibility. An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the latin maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit which means an act of the court shall prejudice no man. The above principles equally apply to other tribunals based on the principle(s) enumerated above.