Rectification jurisdiction cannot replace review; a concluded tribunal order cannot be reopened and re-decided on merits.

Rectification jurisdiction under section 254(2) is confined to mistakes apparent from the record and cannot be used for a rehearing, substantive review, or reopening a concluded decision on merits. The Tribunal had no inherent or incidental power to entertain a second rectification application on the same grounds, recall its earlier order, and readjudicate the dispute afresh. The limited principle that a court should not let an accidental slip prejudice a litigant permits correction of clerical or accidental errors only. The reference was answered for the Revenue, and the recall order was held to be beyond section 254(2).

---

---

Issues: Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal could entertain a second application under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the same grounds after the first application had been dismissed, and whether it could recall its earlier order and re-adjudicate the matter on merits.

Analysis: The scope of rectification under section 254(2) is confined to correcting mistakes apparent from the record. The power does not include a rehearing on merits or a substantive review of the earlier decision. Since review is not an inherent power and can be exercised only when expressly conferred, the Tribunal could not invoke inherent or incidental powers to reopen and decide the dispute afresh. The principle that an act of the court should not prejudice a litigant permits correction of accidental slips or omissions, but does not justify a merits-based reversal of a concluded order.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was not competent to entertain the second rectification application or to recall its earlier finding and readjudicate the matter on merits. The issue is decided against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered for the Revenue, and the Tribunal's order recalling the earlier decision was held to be beyond the scope of section 254(2).

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification jurisdiction is limited to correcting apparent mistakes and cannot be used as a substitute for review or for reopening a concluded decision on merits.

---