Tribunal recall powers limited to patent mistakes; concluded appeal could not be reopened absent an ex parte disposal.

Section 254(2) confines the Tribunal to rectification of a patent mistake apparent from the record and does not permit review, rehearing, or recall of a concluded appellate order. Rule 24 was inapplicable because the appeal had been heard with both parties present, so the order was not ex parte. Alleged procedural unfairness, non-consideration of submissions, reliance on un-cited case law, and factual error did not establish any patent mistake or prejudice warranting reopening. The Tribunal therefore declined to recall its earlier order and the miscellaneous application failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal could recall its earlier appellate order under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 or on inherent powers on the ground of alleged violation of natural justice, non-consideration of submissions, reliance on case law not cited by the parties, and alleged factual errors.

Analysis: The scope of section 254(2) was held to be confined to rectification of a patent mistake apparent from the record and did not extend to a rehearing on merits or an effacement of the earlier appellate order. Recall was distinguished from review, and it was held that the Tribunal had no power to re-adjudicate the entire controversy under the guise of recall. Rule 24 of the Income-tax Rules, 1963 was found inapplicable because the appeal had been heard with both parties present and was not disposed of ex parte. The alleged procedural unfairness was rejected as the hearing had been open and both sides had been afforded opportunity. The reliance on legal precedents by the Tribunal was held proper, since the Tribunal is duty-bound to apply settled law, and the queries raised by it were treated as part of reasoned adjudication on the factual issue under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. No patent wrong or prejudice warranting recall was established.

Conclusion: The prayer for recall was not maintainable and no ground for interference was made out.

Final Conclusion: The miscellaneous application failed, and the Tribunal declined to reopen its earlier order.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 254(2) permits only rectification of an obvious mistake and does not confer a power of review or a general power to recall and re-hear a concluded appeal, except in the limited situation covered by rule 24 for an ex parte disposal.

---