Rectification under section 254(2) is limited to patent errors; it cannot be used to reargue evidence or seek review.

Rectification under section 254(2) is confined to a patent mistake apparent from the record and cannot be used to reappraise evidence, revisit factual inferences, or seek a rehearing. The Tribunal held that alleged non-supply or improper appreciation of translated material, supposed omission to discuss submissions and cited case law, and an incorrect date of trust creation did not disclose any rectifiable error because the relevant material had already been considered and the factual slip did not affect the result. It also treated the miscellaneous applications as an impermissible attempt to review the concluded appellate order, and rejected them.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the applications under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 disclosed any mistake apparent from record in the Tribunal's earlier order on the basis of alleged non-supply or improper appreciation of translated documents and connected facts; (ii) whether the alleged omission to consider specific submissions, case laws, and the date of creation of the trust constituted a rectifiable error under section 254(2); and (iii) whether the miscellaneous applications were in substance an impermissible attempt to seek review of the concluded appellate order.

Issue (i): Whether the applications under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 disclosed any mistake apparent from record in the Tribunal's earlier order on the basis of alleged non-supply or improper appreciation of translated documents and connected facts.

Analysis: The rectification jurisdiction under section 254(2) extends only to an obvious mistake apparent from the record and does not permit reappraisal of evidence or re-argument of the matter. The Tribunal held that the assessee had been supplied the relevant material and the gist of the foreign information, and that the grievance raised was essentially an attempt to revisit factual inferences already drawn. It also relied on the principle under section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that facts especially within a person's knowledge must be proved by that person.

Conclusion: No mistake apparent from record was shown on this ground, and the plea was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the alleged omission to consider specific submissions, case laws, and the date of creation of the trust constituted a rectifiable error under section 254(2).

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the submissions regarding absence of deposits in the relevant year, the alleged discretionary nature of the trust, non-resident status, and the contention of addition based on presumption had already been considered in the main order. It further held that every cited authority need not be discussed separately if the relevant ones were examined. The error in recording the date of creation of the trust was treated as a factual slip that did not affect the conclusion and therefore did not amount to a mistake apparent from record.

Conclusion: The alleged omissions and factual error were not rectifiable under section 254(2).

Issue (iii): Whether the miscellaneous applications were in substance an impermissible attempt to seek review of the concluded appellate order.

Analysis: The Tribunal reiterated that rectification cannot be used to obtain a rehearing or a different view on the same material. Since the original order had been passed after consideration of the record and rival submissions, the applications amounted to an attempt to review the decision, which is beyond the scope of section 254(2).

Conclusion: The applications were held to be not maintainable as review petitions in the guise of rectification.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal found no error apparent on record and declined to interfere with its earlier order, resulting in rejection of the rectification requests.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification under section 254(2) is confined to patent mistakes apparent from the record and cannot be used to reargue the merits, seek reconsideration of evidence, or obtain review of a concluded order.

---