Rectification jurisdiction under section 254(2) cannot be used to review a prior order when a ground was decided in substance.

Rectification under section 254(2) is limited to patent mistakes apparent from the record and cannot be used to review an earlier appellate decision. On a holistic reading, the Tribunal held that Ground No. 5 had already been dealt with in substance in the prior order as part of the broader dispute over the assessee's activity and liability under the Interest Tax Act. The alleged non-adjudication was therefore not a separate, rectifiable error, and the miscellaneous applications seeking recall were not maintainable. The dissenting view also treated the ground as already disposed of and opposed recall on the same basis.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's earlier order suffered from a mistake apparent from the record on account of alleged non-adjudication of Ground No. 5, and whether the miscellaneous applications seeking recall under the rectification jurisdiction were maintainable.

Analysis: The disputed ground was held by the majority to have been dealt with in substance in the earlier appellate order when read as a whole. The majority view was that the grievance raised by Ground No. 5 was not a separate, unaddressed issue, but formed part of the larger controversy concerning the nature of the assessee's activity and its liability under the Interest Tax Act. It was further held that rectification jurisdiction under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is confined to patent and obvious mistakes apparent from the record and cannot be used to re-examine or review the merits of the earlier decision. The dissenting view treated Ground No. 5 as already disposed of and opposed recall on the same reasoning.

Conclusion: The alleged mistake was not made out as a rectifiable error, and the applications for recall failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A ground cannot be recalled under section 254(2) merely because it is alleged to have been inadequately reasoned if, on a holistic reading, it stands decided in substance; rectification cannot be used as a substitute for review.

---