Tribunal limits rectification to apparent mistakes, not merit review.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's Miscellaneous Application seeking rectification of a mistake in its order, stating that its jurisdiction is limited to rectifying apparent mistakes, not reviewing or revising orders on merit. The Tribunal found no merit in the application, as the impugned order was deemed an error of decision rather than a mistake apparent on record for review under section 254(2) of the IT Act. The Tribunal's decision was based on a thorough analysis of facts and evidence, setting aside the issues to the AO for proper verification and applying the same rate only to specific transactions based on impounded material.

---

---

Issues involved:
Rectification of mistake in the Tribunal's order dated 29th May, 2018 regarding ground no. 2 and 4 of the revenue's appeal.

Analysis:
The assessee filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking rectification of the mistake in the Tribunal's order. The contention was that the Tribunal reversed the order of the ld. CIT (A) without considering the fact that the AO did not provide any additional material against the assessee regarding the receipt of money out of books on scrap sales or cash received back for freight charges. The ld. D/R opposed the application, stating that the order was passed on merit after analyzing relevant facts and cannot be reviewed under section 254(2) of the IT Act.

The assessee contended that the Tribunal's findings on scrap sales and freight receipts were based on impounded material from a survey. The Tribunal found that the AO extrapolated the incriminating material for all transactions, but the ld. CIT (A) deleted the additions as no additional material was presented. The Tribunal set aside the issues to the AO for proper verification, applying the same rate only to specific transactions based on the impounded material. The Tribunal's decision was based on a thorough analysis of facts and evidence, not disputed by the assessee.

The Tribunal concluded that the relief sought by the assessee in the Miscellaneous Application was beyond the provisions of section 254(2) as the Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited to rectifying apparent mistakes, not reviewing or revising orders on merit. The Tribunal found no merit in the application and dismissed it, stating that the impugned order might be an error of decision but not a mistake apparent on record for review under section 254(2) of the IT Act.

In summary, the Tribunal's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the impounded material, relevant facts, and evidence. The Tribunal set aside the issues to the AO for proper verification, applying the same rate only to specific transactions based on the impounded material. The Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Application as the relief sought was beyond its jurisdiction under section 254(2) of the IT Act.

---