Rectification under section 254(2) cannot justify total recall of an appellate order when only the reasoning is disputed.

Section 254(2) confers only limited rectification power for mistakes apparent from the record and does not permit a total recall of an appellate order or a de novo rehearing. A mistake confined to the reasoning portion, where the operative part of the order remains correct, is not enough to justify reopening the entire decision. The jurisdiction cannot be used to revisit debatable issues or to rewrite the order after full arguments. The Tribunal's attempt to recall its whole order under section 254(2) was therefore impermissible, and the original operative order was restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal could invoke section 254(2) to recall its earlier appellate order in entirety on the ground of an apparent mistake in the reasoning portion, and whether such recall was within the scope of rectification or amounted to an impermissible rehearing.

Analysis: Section 254(2) permits amendment or rectification of a mistake apparent from the record, but not a total obliteration of an earlier order followed by a de novo rehearing. A mistaken observation in the reasoning portion, where the operative ordering portion is correct and unaffected, does not justify recalling the whole order. The jurisdiction under section 254(2) is confined to obvious mistakes and cannot be used to reopen matters requiring long arguments or to rewrite the decision on debateable issues. The availability of an appellate remedy under section 260A does not validate an order passed without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was not entitled to recall its entire order under section 254(2); the impugned recall order was set aside and the original operative order was restored, in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: The rectification power under section 254(2) is limited to correcting apparent mistakes and cannot be used to effect a total recall of an appellate order or to reopen the matter for fresh adjudication where only the reasoning, and not the operative order, is said to be erroneous.

---