Rectification under section 254(2) cannot be used to reopen merits or seek a disguised review of concluded findings.

Rectification under section 254(2) is confined to patent mistakes apparent from the record and cannot be used to seek a rehearing or review of issues already decided on merits. The Tribunal held that the application, which challenged findings on rejection of books, stock valuation, estimation of unrecorded sales, and the resulting addition, was in substance a request to revisit concluded factual and legal determinations. As no apparent mistake was shown, no recall or rectification was warranted, and the miscellaneous application was dismissed as an impermissible disguised review.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Miscellaneous Application disclosed any mistake apparent from record warranting recall or rectification of the appellate order under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The relief sought in the application was, in substance, a rehearing of issues already adjudicated in the appeal on merits, including rejection of books, valuation of stock, estimation of sales outside the books, and the consequent addition. The earlier appellate order had recorded findings on the factual matrix and the applicable legal position, and the Tribunal held that such concluded issues do not amount to an apparent mistake merely because the assessee seeks a different view. Rectification under section 254(2) is confined to patent mistakes and does not confer power of review or reconsideration of a matter decided on merits.

Conclusion: No mistake apparent from record was made out, and the Miscellaneous Application was not maintainable as a disguised request for review. The application was dismissed.

---