Binding precedent omitted from order can justify limited recall under rectification powers for fresh adjudication of specific grounds.

Non-consideration of a binding jurisdictional High Court precedent on mechanical approval under section 151 can amount to a mistake apparent from the record for rectification under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had raised objections on reopening, approval under section 151, non-consideration of material under section 142(3), and addition under section 68, but the earlier order had not expressly dealt with the cited binding decisions on non-application of mind. It therefore ordered limited recall of the earlier order so the specific omitted grounds could be adjudicated afresh, while the remaining grounds were not pursued.

---

---

Issues: Whether the miscellaneous application disclosed a mistake apparent from record warranting recall of the Tribunal's earlier order for non-consideration of binding jurisdictional precedent and related grounds.

Analysis: The miscellaneous application was founded on the contention that the earlier order had dealt with the merits of reopening, addition under section 68, and approval under section 151, but had not specifically adjudicated the assessee's reliance on binding decisions of the jurisdictional High Court on mechanical approval and non-application of mind. The record showed that the issue of sanction under section 151, the alleged failure to consider material under section 142(3), and the objection regarding addition under section 68 had been raised and discussed, yet the asserted binding precedents were not expressly dealt with. A non-consideration of a relevant binding decision can constitute an error apparent from the record for the purposes of rectification under section 254(2).

Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the omission required limited recall of its earlier order so that the specific grounds could be adjudicated afresh.

Final Conclusion: The miscellaneous application succeeded only to the extent of recall for limited reconsideration of the identified grounds, while the remaining grounds were not pursued.

Ratio Decidendi: Failure to consider a binding jurisdictional precedent bearing directly on an issue decided in the order can amount to a mistake apparent from the record and justify recall under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

---