Rectification under section 254(2) is limited to apparent errors, not a rehearing on evidence or merits.

Rectification under section 254(2) is confined to patent, self-evident mistakes apparent from the record and cannot be used for review, rehearing, or re-argument of the appeal. The Tribunal held that the Revenue's miscellaneous application substantially sought reconsideration of evidence and the issue of extrapolated suppressed sales, which had already been dealt with in the original order. It further found no omission or apparent error in relation to the alleged admission, excise proceedings, or earlier decisions relied upon by the Revenue. As no mistake apparent from the record was shown, the rectification application was held not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order of the Tribunal suffered from a mistake apparent from the record warranting rectification under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, including the Revenue's plea for reconsideration of the evidence and extrapolation of suppressed sales.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that rectification under section 254(2) is confined to patent and self-evident mistakes apparent from the record and does not permit review, rehearing, or re-argument of the appeal. It found that the Revenue had substantially reargued the original appeal in the guise of a miscellaneous application. The Tribunal further held that the material relied upon by the Revenue, including the alleged admission, the excise proceedings, and the issue of extrapolation, had already been considered in the original order, and no omission amounting to a rectifiable error was shown. The contention that the Tribunal had overlooked decisive material or had wrongly interpreted earlier decisions was rejected as an attempt to revisit the merits.

Conclusion: No mistake apparent from the record was established, and the application for rectification was not maintainable.

---