Rectification under section 254(2) cannot be used to reopen merits; only obvious mistakes apparent from the record may be corrected.

Section 254(2) permits only correction of an obvious mistake apparent from the record and cannot be used to seek a merits review of a concluded decision. The Tribunal found that the miscellaneous application was based on disagreement with its earlier reasoning, which turned on appreciation of facts, evidence, and treaty provisions. Even if the challenged observations were ignored, the ultimate conclusion would not change. Recall of the earlier order was therefore not justified, and the application was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order of the Tribunal contained a mistake apparent from the record within the meaning of section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, warranting recall of the earlier order.

Analysis: The majority view held that the miscellaneous application sought a review of the Tribunal's earlier decision rather than rectification of an apparent mistake. The Tribunal's earlier conclusions were based on appreciation of facts, evidence, and the relevant treaty provisions, and even if the disputed observations were ignored, the ultimate conclusion would not change. A rectification under section 254(2) is confined to correcting an obvious mistake and cannot be used to reargue the merits or reopen the decision simply because one party disagrees with the reasoning.

Conclusion: No mistake apparent from the record was made out, and recall of the earlier order was not justified.

Final Conclusion: The miscellaneous application was rejected on the ground that the relief sought would amount to an impermissible merits review rather than rectification of an apparent error.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 254(2) permits correction only of an obvious mistake apparent from the record and cannot be invoked to revisit the merits of a concluded decision.

---