This appeal filed by assessee is against order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 7-6-1984 for assessment year 1978-79, for which previous year ended on 31-3-1978. 2. assessee is dealer in edible oils. On 28-7-1978 assessee filed its return of income for assessment year 1978-79, admitting income of Rs. 1,23,541. In statement accompanying return assessee has shown value of closing stock as on 31-3-1978 as under: "RBD Palm Olian. - Amount paid for purchase from Vasant Corpn., Singapore - Goods lost in transit and insurance claim pending Rs. 1,06,004.70" Apparently assessee did not claim amount of Rs. 1,06,004.70 as business or trading loss. assessment was completed under section 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') on 23-10-1978 accepting value of closing stock as shown by assessee. Certain disallowances and additions have been made in that assessment. appeal was preferred by assessee with AAC. AAC, by his order dated 26-10-1979, partly allowed assessee's appeal. Against order of AAC assessee preferred appeal to Tribunal. On 15-12-1981 assessee preferred application under section 154 of Act and claimed that there was mistake apparent from record in ITO's not allowing Rs. 1,06,004.70 as trading gloss and prayed for rectification of same. While said application of assessee under section 154 was pending before ITO for his orders, assessee filed additional ground on 18-12-1981 in appeal filed before Tribunal. In said additional ground raised before Tribunal, assessee urged that ITO should have held that sum of Rs. 1,06,004.70 was allowable as trading loss in view of fact that ship carrying goods-RBD Palm Olian - from Vasant Corpn., Singapore sank in high seas on 6-2-1978. But Tribunal in its order dated 30-6-1982 did not entertain additional ground observing as under: "On behalf of assessee, additional ground was sought to be raised before us for assessment year 1978-79. It was stated that assessee had incurred loss of goods in transit amounting to Rs. 1,60,400 due to sinking of ship and this loss is allowable as business loss of year. As rightly pointed out by revenue, ground raised for first time before Tribunal cannot be entertained when there is no material on record before us to dispose of same. We, therefore, reject additional ground raised." (We may clarify here that in order of Tribunal dated 30-6-1982 amount of loss has been wrongly shown as Rs. 1,60,400 instead of actual amount of Rs. 1,06,004.70) 3. ITO by his order dated 13-9-1982 rejected assessee's petition under section 154 observing that fact whether assessee had actually lost goods of value of Rs. 1,06,004.70 in high seas on 6-2-1978 and whether assessee had obtained any amount by way of insurance claim have to be enquired into in detail and such detailed enquiries cannot be made in proceeding under section 154. Aggrieved by said order of ITO assessee preferred appeal to Commissioner (Appeals). 4. Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed appeal observing as under: "It appears that when appellant filed return and Income-tax Officer completed assessment appellant was aware that ship had sunk but they had expected to have claim settled by insurance company. Therefore, as on close of accounting year appellant had not come to conclusion that value of goods has been lost permanently. They had not written it off as loss in their accounts. In these circumstances there is no question of Income-tax Officer now holding that there was error apparent from records in assessment order, when he completed assessment by order dated 3-1-1980. It would seem that subsequent events have persuaded appellant to make claim that loss was incurred during that year. Determining whether loss was incurred required investigation into facts of case and finding in this regard cannot be basis for rectification under section 154. Income-tax Officer's order refusing to rectify order is confirmed and appeal is dismissed." Against order of Commissioner (Appeals), assessee preferred present appeal before Tribunal. 5. At time of hearing assessee's counsel filed paper book of 39 pages. His arguments were to following effect: assessee brought to notice of ITO fact of loss of stock-in-trade of Rs. 1,06,004.70 in transit. It is true that assessee did not claim same as trading loss. He showed same in closing stock as on 31-3-1978. But ITO should have allowed same as trading loss by following decision of Supreme Court in cases of CIT v. S. N. A. S. A. Annamalai Chettiar [1972] 86 ITR 607 and CIT v. Nainital Bank Ltd. [1965] 55 ITR 707. officers of department must not take advantage of ignorance of assessee as to his rights. It is duty of officer to assist taxpayer in matter of claiming and securing relief as pointed out by CBDT in its Circular No. 14 of 1955 dated 11-4-1955, reproduced in Chaturvedi and Pithisaria's Income-tax Law, Third edn., Vol. 1, p. 856. When applicable provision of law or decision of Supreme Court was left out without being applied there is mistake apparent from record - D. S. Chenai v. WTO [1985] 11 ITD 9 (Hyd.), Farukh Ahmed v. WTO 21 TTJ 48, Smt. Sarda Devi Singhania v. WTO [1985] 15 ITD 129 (All.) and Sarangpur Cotton Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1985] 152 ITR 251 (Guj.) (FB). For getting said mistake rectified, assessee applied to ITO under section 154 on 15-12-1981. entire record of case has to be looked into by ITO [see Sampath Iyengar's Law of Income-tax, Seventh edn., Vol. 4, p. 3631]. entire assessment order dated 23-10-1978 did not merge in order of Tribunal dated 30-6-1982 because Tribunal refused to entertain additional ground raised in matter of trading loss of Rs. 1,06,004 as can be seen from paragraph 13 of Tribunal's order-Smt. Nita Taneja v. ACED [1984] 150 ITR 668 (Pat.). Loss of stock-in-trade was allowed by Commissioner (Appeals), Madras in his order dated 10-9-1985 in case of George Maijo (Vizag.) as can be seen from pages 34 to 39 of paper book. 6. arguments of departmental representative were to following effect: additional ground taken by assessee in respect of claim of Rs. 1,06,004.70 was rejected by Tribunal in its order dated 30-6-1982. So rectification by ITO under section 154 was not permissible - Rohtak & Hissar Districts Electric Supply Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1981] 128 ITR 52 (Delhi), section 154(1A) and commentary by Chaturvedi & Pithisaria's Income-tax Law, Third edn., Vol. 3, p. 3152]. Reliance is placed on order of ITO under section 154. 7. We have considered rival submissions. additional ground raised by assessee in respect of Rs. 1,06,004.70 was not entertained by Tribunal as can be seen from paragraph 13 in order dated 30-6-1982. Tribunal did not adjudicate and give decision on additional ground raised by assessee. Section 154(1A) , therefore, has no application in facts of assessee's case. Supreme Court in case of M. K. Venkatachalam, ITO v. Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. [1958] 34 ITR 143 held that mistake may be either of law or of fact and that glaring and obvious mistake of law can be rectified, as much as mistake of fact apparent from record. Loss of stock- in-trade is trading loss and so is allowable deduction as per decision of Supreme Court in case of S. N. A. S. A. Annamalai Chettiar (supra). Allahabad Bench of Tribunal held in case of Smt. Sarda Devi Singhania (supra) that omission to follow law declared by Supreme Court was mistake of law apparent from record and hence rectifiable under section 35 of Wealth-tax Act, 1957. Section 154 of Income-tax Act is similar to section 35 of Wealth-tax Act. Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of CIT v. K. N. Oil Industries [1983] 142 ITR 13 held as under: "The record of assessment is not confined to return. Section 154 of Income-tax Act, 1961, which confers jurisdiction for rectifying mistake enables ITO to assume jurisdiction when he finds 'any mistake apparent from record'. word 'record', as used in section 154 , will include all material which forms part of assessment proceedings and not only return. If assessee omits to claim relief allowable to him under provisions of Income-tax Act, 1961, it could not be said that he is not entitled to get that relief. It is duty of ITO and other officers administering Act to inform assessee that he is entitled to particular relief if it is apparent that he is so entitled from material available in proceedings of assessment:" (p. 13) Supreme Court held in case of Maharana Mills (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1959] 36 ITR 350 that "'the record' contemplated by section 35 [of Indian Income-tax Act, 1922] does not mean only order of assessment but it comprises all proceedings on which assessment order is based and Income-tax Officer is entitled for purpose of exercising his jurisdiction under section 35 to look into whole evidence and law applicable to ascertain whether there was error." So, in instant case, though assessee had not claimed deduction for trading loss of Rs. 1,06,004.70 ITO, when he made assessment on 23-10-1978 was duty bound to inform assessee that he was entitled to deduction. This duty is stressed by CBDT in its circular dated 11-4-1955 (supra). fact of sinking of ship on 7-2-1978 and loss caused to assessee are corroborated by his correspondence with insurance company well before end of accounting year as placed before us in paper book. ITO is entitled to, for purpose of exercising rectification jurisdiction to look into whole evidence. He was not justified when he stated in his order under section 154 dated 13-9-1982 that 'the fact whether assessee had actually lost goods for value of Rs. 1,06,004.70 on high seas on 6-2-1978 and whether assessee had obtained any amount by way of insurance claim are to be enquired into in detail before allowing assessee's claim. Such detailed enquiries cannot be made in proceeding under section 154' . Pendancy of settlement of insurance claim is no bar to allowability of loss in this year as has been held by Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of Laxmi Ginning & Oil Mills v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 958. So, in circumstances, we hold that there is mistake of law apparent from record and direct ITO to look into assessee's claim of trading loss and allow it. 8. In result, appeal is treated as allowed. *** RADHAKRISHNA OIL MILLS v. INCOME TAX OFFICER