Rectification under section 254(2) cannot reopen merits or jurisdictional objections to a withdrawal notice.

Rectification under section 254(2) is confined to manifest errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to seek review of a merits-based conclusion. The Tribunal had already considered the objection that the show cause notice for withdrawal of approval under section 10(23C)(vi) was not issued by the prescribed authority, the effect of its signing by the DCIT on behalf of the Commissioner, and the alleged inapplicability of section 292BB. As the revenue's miscellaneous application merely sought reconsideration of those findings and identified no apparent mistake, it was held not maintainable and the earlier quashing of the challenge was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revenue's miscellaneous application disclosed any mistake apparent from the record warranting rectification of the Tribunal's earlier order, and whether the validity of the show cause notice issued for withdrawal of approval under section 10(23C)(vi) could be reopened in such proceedings.

Analysis: The scope of rectification under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is confined to manifest and obvious mistakes on the face of the record and does not extend to a review of conclusions reached on merits. The earlier order had already considered the objection that the show cause notice was not issued by the prescribed authority, the effect of the notice being signed by the DCIT (Hqrs.) for and on behalf of the Commissioner, and the contention that the withdrawal of approval could not be sustained. The Tribunal had also examined the mandatory requirement under the thirteenth proviso to section 10(23C)(vi), the jurisdictional role of the prescribed authority, and the inapplicability of section 292BB to cure such a defect. The revenue's application merely sought reconsideration of those findings on merits and did not point out any apparent error.

Conclusion: No mistake apparent from the record was shown, and the miscellaneous application was not maintainable as a device to revisit the merits of the earlier decision.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal declined to interfere with its earlier decision and sustained the quashing of the revenue's challenge through rectification proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 254(2) permits correction only of obvious errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be invoked to re-argue or review a decision already reached on merits, especially where the issue involves a considered finding on jurisdiction and validity of notice.

---