Mistake apparent from record permits limited recall where a cited comparable, a misdescribed issue, and omitted grounds were not properly addressed.

Non-consideration of a cited co-ordinate bench decision, a misdescription in the foreign exchange gain and working capital adjustment paragraph, and failure to adjudicate grounds on advance tax, self-assessment tax, and MAT credit were treated as mistakes apparent from the record. The Tribunal held that such errors justify limited recall or substitution to correct the record and decide the omitted issues, without reopening matters beyond the identified mistakes. The miscellaneous petition was therefore allowed only to the extent necessary for those corrections and for limited adjudication of the unaddressed grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether non-consideration of a co-ordinate bench decision while deciding the inclusion of I2T2 India Limited as a comparable constituted a mistake apparent from the record; (ii) whether the modification sought in the paragraph dealing with foreign exchange gain and working capital adjustment disclosed a mistake apparent from the record; and (iii) whether the grounds relating to advance tax, self-assessment tax, and MAT credit, which were not adjudicated earlier, warranted recall of the order for limited adjudication.

Issue (i): whether non-consideration of a co-ordinate bench decision while deciding the inclusion of I2T2 India Limited as a comparable constituted a mistake apparent from the record.

Analysis: The omission to consider the earlier co-ordinate bench view cited before the Tribunal was treated as an apparent mistake on the record. The finding on the comparable was therefore considered amenable to recall for limited correction.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee, and the recall was allowed to the extent it related to I2T2 India Limited.

Issue (ii): whether the modification sought in the paragraph dealing with foreign exchange gain and working capital adjustment disclosed a mistake apparent from the record.

Analysis: The record showed that the reference to working capital adjustment in the earlier paragraph did not correspond to the actual grounds requiring adjudication. The paragraph was therefore required to be substituted so that the remand direction accurately reflected the disputed issue concerning foreign exchange gain and transfer pricing adjustment.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee, and the paragraph was ordered to be substituted as sought.

Issue (iii): whether the grounds relating to advance tax, self-assessment tax, and MAT credit, which were not adjudicated earlier, warranted recall of the order for limited adjudication.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that no finding had been recorded on those grounds in the earlier order. Since the grounds remained unaddressed, recall for the limited purpose of adjudication was justified.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee, and the order was recalled for limited consideration of those grounds.

Final Conclusion: The miscellaneous petition succeeded, and the earlier order was recalled only to the extent necessary for correcting the identified mistakes and deciding the omitted grounds.

Ratio Decidendi: Non-consideration of a material co-ordinate bench decision, clerical misdescription of the issue decided, and failure to adjudicate a raised ground constitute a mistake apparent from the record warranting limited recall.

---