Rectification under section 254(2) cannot be used for review; only manifest errors apparent from the record may be corrected.

Rectification under section 254(2) is confined to manifest errors apparent from the record, such as clerical, grammatical, or arithmetical mistakes, and cannot be used to reargue facts, seek review, or obtain fresh adjudication on the merits. The Tribunal treated the plea that affidavits, synopses, factual assertions, and cited decisions were not considered as a request for reappraisal rather than correction of an obvious mistake. On reading the earlier order, it found the dispute had already been decided on merits and that no apparent error justified recall. The Misc. Application was therefore dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Misc. Application seeking recall of the Tribunal's earlier order could be allowed under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the ground of a mistake apparent from the record.

Analysis: The application was founded on the contention that certain affidavits, synopses, factual assertions, and cited decisions had not been considered in the earlier appellate order. The Tribunal held that the grievance in substance required reappraisal of the facts and review of the earlier decision, which is beyond the limited scope of rectification under section 254(2). A mistake apparent from the record must be an obvious clerical, grammatical, arithmetical, or similar error detectable without rehearing the matter. On a fair reading of the earlier order, the Tribunal found that the dispute had already been decided on merits and that the alleged omissions did not constitute an apparent mistake warranting recall.

Conclusion: The request for rectification under section 254(2) was rejected and the Misc. Application was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification under section 254(2) is confined to manifest errors apparent from the record and cannot be used as a substitute for review or fresh adjudication on the merits.

---