Rectification under section 254(2) fails where the original order already considered the key evidence and reasoning.

Rectification under section 254(2) requires a mistake apparent from the record, not a re-argument on merits. The Tribunal found that its earlier order had already considered the managing director's statement, the absence of a valuation report, and the lower authorities' reasons for rejecting the share premium claim. It held that the alleged omission was not an apparent mistake because the original decision rested on multiple factual and legal grounds, and the observation on sale of shares was only ancillary. The miscellaneous petition was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's earlier order contained an apparent mistake warranting rectification under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the earlier order had already considered the material aspects relied upon by the assessee, including the statement of the managing director, the absence of a valuation report, and the reasons accepted by the lower authorities for rejecting the claim of share premium. It held that the decision was based on multiple factual and legal reasons recorded in the original order, and that the alleged omission was not a mistake apparent from the record. The Tribunal also noted that its observation regarding the sale of shares was ancillary and did not alter the primary basis of the original decision.

Conclusion: No rectifiable apparent mistake was established, and the miscellaneous petition was rejected.

---