Rectification under section 254(2) is limited to patent errors; Tribunal refused recall where the application sought rehearing.

Rectification under section 254(2) is limited to an obvious, manifest and patent mistake on the face of the record and cannot be used to reargue or review a concluded Tribunal order. The assessee's miscellaneous applications sought, in substance, to reopen findings on transfer pricing documentation and the penalty under section 271AA, but the Tribunal found no apparent error in its earlier decision. It also distinguished Form 3CEB from the documentation requirements under sections 92D and 92E, and held that the applications did not disclose any mistake warranting recall.

---

---

Issues: Whether the miscellaneous applications under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 disclosed any mistake apparent from the record warranting recall of the Tribunal's earlier order.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that rectification under section 254(2) is confined to an obvious and patent mistake and cannot be used to reargue the matter or seek a review of the earlier decision. It noted that the assessee was, in substance, attempting to reopen conclusions already reached on the evidentiary position relating to transfer pricing documentation and the penalty under section 271AA. The Tribunal further held that the contents of Form 3CEB and the documentation requirements under sections 92D and 92E are distinct, and that the plea raised in the miscellaneous applications did not reveal any apparent error in the original order.

Conclusion: No mistake apparent from the record was made out, and recall was not warranted.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 254(2) cannot be invoked to obtain a rehearing or review of a concluded order unless the error is manifest, obvious, and patent on the face of the record.

---