H.S. AHLUWALIA, J.M. dispute in these appeals relates to legality of ITO 's order refusing to rectify his original order of assessment. In returns filed by assessee, she did not claim any deduction under s. 5(1)( xxxii) of WT Act. Consequently, WTO computed total wealth of assessee at Rs. 5,07,500 and Rs. 3,22,450 under s. 16(1) of WT Act. Subsequently assessee filed petition under s. 30 of WT Act claiming relief under s. 5(1) (xxxii) in respect of capital in M/s Shree Amar Trading Co. Ambala Cantt. WTO was of opinion that since there was no claim for deduction under s. 5(1)(xxxii), no deduction could be granted to her. On appeal, AAC observed that it was crystal clear from record that assessee was entitled to deduction and WTO was duty bound to allow all such deduction even if no claim had been made in return. statement of wealth showed that assessee had capital employed in M/s. Shree Amar Trading Co. and WTO was aware that this was industrial undertaking. Moreover, deduction under s. 5(1)(xxxii) in respect of this capital (sic) 1982- 83 and 1983-84 on 19th March, 1985 i.e. before date of passing of order under s. 35 of WT Act. It was WTO's statutory duty to allow all such deductions. mistake was apparent from record and WTO should have judicially applied his mind to facts to come to conclusion that there was mistake in record according to which deduction had not been allowed. He, therefore, directed WTO to allow deduction accordingly. Revenue has come up in second appeal before us. We have heard representative is of parties at length in these appeals. On behalf of Revenue it was contended that there was no material before WTO on basis of which he could have allowed deduction. No such claim had been made before him though in subsequent year, relief has been allowed to assessee but for these years, question of any error on part of ITO did not arise. In support of this contention, reliance was placed upon decision of Supreme Court of India in case of Addl. CIT, Gujarat vs. Gurjargavures P. Ltd. 1978 CTR (SC) 1: (1978) 111 ITR 1 (SC). In this case it was held that order of Tribunal passed in second appeal directing AAC to entertain assessee's claim on ground that entire assessment was open before him and directing ITO to allow appropriate relief even if claim had not been made before ITO was bad in law. present case of assessee is still worse because in this case there was no appeal against original order refusing to allow deduction to assessee. Another authority relied upon was in case of Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd vs. CIT (1986) 58 CTR (SC) 126: (1986) 161 ITR 159 (SC). In this case again it was held that there should be material to support claim for relief under s. 84 of IT Act, 1961 and unless that material could be referred to no grievance can be made if ITO refused relief. claim for rectification made in more or less similar circumstances was held not to be maintainable. This order was against decision of Allahabad High Court reported as Anchor Pressing (P) Ltd vs. CIT (1975) 100 ITR 347 (All) in which High Court had similarly rejected claim of assessee. On behalf of assessee it was contended that same WTO was ITO of firm M/s Shree Amar Trading Co. and from there he could gather capital employed by assessee in that concern from which corresponding relief could be granted to assessee. It was also contended that it was duty of WTO to grant all such reliefs even if they had not been claimed in return and assessee who was lady should not be deprived of her legitimate rights due to her inadvertence. After carefully considering all facts and circumstances of case, we are of opinion that so far as order of WTO refusing to rectify his previous order is concerned, it cannot be said to suffer from any mistake apparent on face of record. As on stands, original order accepting assessee's return was in accordance with what assessee had herself asked f o r and alongwith return there was no material to justify any claim for exemption. Therefore, order of AAC holding that ITO should have rectified his original orders is prima facie bad. same is accordingly set aside. We may, however, point out that this would be otherwise very hard case for assessee if for any reason she failed to claim exemption in question. She should not be deprived of her rights altogether merely for some reason or should not be deprived of her rights altogether merely for some reason or other she omitted to make this claim. To our mind, it would be fittest case for CWT to exercise his powers under s. 25 of WT Act and grant appropriate relief to assessee because this is case of extreme hardship where assessee would be losing her valuable right due to her inadvertence or slip. We are, therefore, confident that CWT will grant her necessary relief. With these remarks, we accept appeals and set aside order of AAC in question. In result, appeals are allowed. *** WEALTH-TAX OFFICER v. MISS SAPNA GUPTA