Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a second miscellaneous application seeking recall of the Tribunal's earlier order was maintainable under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and whether the alleged omission or error justified rectification or recall.
Analysis: The application was founded on the same set of facts on which an earlier miscellaneous application had already been rejected. The scope of section 254(2) is confined to rectification of mistakes apparent from the record and does not extend to review, recall, or rehearing of the appeal on merits. A statutory authority cannot exercise a review power unless expressly conferred, and the Tribunal has no such express power under the Act. Reopening the concluded appeal would require a fresh adjudication, which lies outside the limited rectificatory jurisdiction. The earlier omission to deal separately with one contention did not justify a recall when the Tribunal had already considered the matter as a whole.
Conclusion: The second miscellaneous application was not maintainable and the request for recall/rectification was rejected.
Final Conclusion: The Tribunal held that section 254(2) could not be used to revisit the merits of the earlier appellate decision or to secure recall of the order in the guise of rectification.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 254(2) authorises only correction of a mistake apparent from the record and cannot be invoked to review, recall, or reopen the Tribunal's order for a fresh decision on merits.