Limited rectification jurisdiction bars a second miscellaneous application and excludes re-agitation of merits under the record-mistake standard.

Section 254(2) permits only rectification of mistakes apparent from the record and does not allow recall or review of the entire order. A second miscellaneous application on the same facts was therefore not maintainable, especially after rejection of the earlier application. The alleged non-consideration of cited Supreme Court decisions was not a rectifiable error because the Tribunal had already considered the arguments and authorities relied upon, and had decided the issue by applying a directly relevant Supreme Court ruling. Re-agitation of the merits fell outside the limited rectification jurisdiction, and no mistake apparent from the record was established.

---

---

Issues: Whether the second miscellaneous application was maintainable under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and whether the alleged non-consideration of cited Supreme Court decisions constituted a mistake apparent from the record warranting rectification.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the scope of section 254(2) is confined to rectification of mistakes apparent from the record and does not extend to recalling or reviewing the entire order. A second miscellaneous application on the same set of facts could not be entertained, particularly after rejection of the earlier application. The alleged omission to apply cited precedents was found not to be a rectifiable mistake, because the earlier order had considered the arguments and the authorities relied upon, and had decided the issue on the basis of a directly applicable Supreme Court decision. The Tribunal further held that the cited precedents did not govern the facts of the case in the manner claimed, and that re-agitation of the merits was beyond the limited rectification jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The second miscellaneous application was not maintainable and no mistake apparent from the record was made out for rectification.

---