Rectification under section 254(2) cannot be used to review a reasoned Tribunal order or reopen merits using later case law.

Section 254(2) permits only rectification of a patent mistake apparent from the record and cannot be used to reopen the merits or conduct a review. The Tribunal held that the Revenue's reliance on a later Supreme Court ruling did not show any such mistake, because the earlier order had already examined the jurisdictional and limitation issues on the facts and law available at the time. Since the later ruling was not available when the matter was heard, its omission did not justify recall or rectification. The proper remedy for any perceived error lay in appeal, so the miscellaneous application failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Revenue's miscellaneous application sought under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 disclosed any mistake apparent from the record on account of non-consideration of a later Supreme Court ruling, or whether it amounted to an impermissible review of the Tribunal's earlier order.

Analysis: The Tribunal had originally quashed the assessment on the footing that the notice under section 143(2) was issued by a non-jurisdictional officer and that the later notices were beyond limitation. In the miscellaneous application, the Revenue relied on a subsequent Supreme Court decision to contend that the assessee had not raised a jurisdictional objection within the period contemplated by section 124(3)(a). The governing test under section 254(2) is confined to correction of an obvious mistake apparent from the record and does not permit reopening the appeal on merits or reappreciation of the entire controversy. Applying that standard, the omission to consider a later decision, especially where the issue had already been decided on a detailed examination of facts and law and the later ruling was not available at the time of hearing, did not justify recall or rectification. The proper remedy, if the earlier order was believed to be erroneous, lay in appeal and not in rectification.

Conclusion: No mistake apparent from the record was shown, and the miscellaneous application could not be used to review the Tribunal's earlier order; the Revenue's application failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 254(2) empowers only rectification of a patent mistake apparent from the record and cannot be invoked to reargue the merits or to replace a reasoned order by applying a later or contested legal position.

---