Rectification under section 254(2) cannot reopen a concluded TDS credit finding; review in disguise is not maintainable.

Rectification under section 254(2) is confined to mistakes apparent from the record and cannot be used to reopen or review a concluded decision on merits. The miscellaneous application sought an alternative treatment of TDS credit by referring to sections 199, 190, 191, Rule 37BA and CBDT Circular No. 07/2007, but the earlier order had already proceeded on the factual finding that the income linked to the credit notes had not accrued to the assessee and that full TDS credit was admissible. As no apparent error was shown, the application was treated as an impermissible review in disguise and was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the miscellaneous application disclosed any mistake apparent from the record warranting rectification under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or whether it was in substance an impermissible attempt to seek review of the earlier order.

Analysis: The application only sought to canvass an alternative method for dealing with TDS credit by relying on the machinery under section 199, section 190, section 191 and Rule 37BA of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, as well as the procedure indicated in Circular No. 07/2007. The earlier order had already proceeded on the factual finding that the income relatable to the credit notes never accrued to the assessee and that, on those facts, full TDS credit was admissible. The pleas raised in the application did not disclose any apparent error on the face of the record and, in substance, amounted to a request to re-examine the merits of the concluded decision. The limited jurisdiction under section 254(2) does not extend to such review.

Conclusion: No mistake apparent from the record was shown, and the miscellaneous application was not maintainable as a review in disguise.

Final Conclusion: The rectification jurisdiction was found inapplicable, and the revenue's miscellaneous application was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification under section 254(2) is confined to apparent mistakes on the record and cannot be invoked to reopen or review a concluded finding on merits.

---