Rectification on apparent error rejected where the application only sought reconsideration of evidence already decided on record.

Rectification under section 254(2) is not maintainable where the applicant only seeks reconsideration of a matter already decided on the existing record and no patent mistake is shown. The Tribunal had earlier deleted additions linked to alleged unaccounted transactions because the seized diary was not corroborated, no incriminating material was found from the assessee's premises, and cross-examination had been denied despite requests. As the Miscellaneous Application merely attempted reappreciation of the same material rather than correction of any apparent error, no mistake from the record was made out and rectification was refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Miscellaneous Application under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 disclosed any mistake apparent from the record in the Tribunal's earlier order deleting additions relating to alleged unaccounted transactions with M/s Fortune Group, so as to warrant rectification.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that during the earlier hearing the Revenue had sufficient opportunity to place documents, but it did not file the material now relied upon. The earlier order had already examined the seized diary, the absence of incriminating material from the assessee's premises, the lack of corroboration linking the diary entries to the assessee's regular books, and the denial of cross-examination despite repeated requests. On those facts, the Tribunal had concluded that the addition had no foundation and was liable to be deleted. The present application sought reappreciation of the same issues rather than correction of any patent error.

Conclusion: No mistake apparent from the record was made out, and no rectification was warranted. The Miscellaneous Application was dismissed, in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The earlier deletion of the addition remained undisturbed, and the attempted rectification failed for want of any apparent error in the record.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification under section 254(2) is not maintainable where the applicant seeks reconsideration of a matter already decided on the basis of the existing record and no patent error is shown.

---