Rectification for omitted statutory grounds: non-adjudication of notice and reassessment challenges justified limited recall.

Under section 254(2), omission to adjudicate a specific appeal ground can be a mistake apparent from the record when the ground raises a substantive statutory or jurisdictional challenge. The ITAT held that the limitation objection in ground 5 was already considered on merits, so no rectification was warranted. By contrast, non-adjudication of ground 6 on absence of notice under section 143(2) and ground 7 on the applicability of sections 130, 144B and 153A, along with CBDT circulars on faceless reassessment, constituted apparent mistakes and justified limited recall of the earlier order. The earlier order was therefore recalled only to the extent of grounds 6 and 7.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether non-consideration of ground no. 5 regarding limitation in passing the final assessment order constituted a mistake apparent from the record warranting rectification under section 254(2); (ii) Whether non-consideration of ground no. 6 regarding absence of notice under section 143(2) constituted a mistake apparent from the record warranting rectification under section 254(2); (iii) Whether non-consideration of ground no. 7 regarding the applicability of sections 130, 144B and 153A, together with the CBDT circulars on faceless reassessment, constituted a mistake apparent from the record warranting rectification under section 254(2).

Issue (i): Whether non-consideration of ground no. 5 regarding limitation in passing the final assessment order constituted a mistake apparent from the record warranting rectification under section 254(2).

Analysis: The earlier order had already dealt with the assessee's challenge on limitation and had recorded that the assessee could not be permitted to raise the objection after failing to object within the prescribed time against the draft assessment order. The omission alleged in the miscellaneous applications did not show any failure to consider a separate surviving issue on limitation.

Conclusion: The ground based on limitation was not a mistake apparent from the record and no rectification was warranted.

Issue (ii): Whether non-consideration of ground no. 6 regarding absence of notice under section 143(2) constituted a mistake apparent from the record warranting rectification under section 254(2).

Analysis: Ground no. 6 had been specifically raised in the appeal but had not been adjudicated in the earlier order. The omission went to a substantive statutory requirement and amounted to an apparent mistake in the order.

Conclusion: The omission on ground no. 6 was a mistake apparent from the record and justified rectification.

Issue (iii): Whether non-consideration of ground no. 7 regarding the applicability of sections 130, 144B and 153A, together with the CBDT circulars on faceless reassessment, constituted a mistake apparent from the record warranting rectification under section 254(2).

Analysis: The earlier order had not returned a finding on the statutory and circular-based challenge raised in ground no. 7. Since the ground involved the legality of the assessment procedure and its jurisdictional foundation, the omission required correction.

Conclusion: The omission on ground no. 7 was a mistake apparent from the record and justified rectification.

Final Conclusion: The miscellaneous applications succeeded only in part, leading to recall of the earlier order limited to grounds 6 and 7 while leaving the finding on ground 5 undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a specific ground raising a substantive statutory or jurisdictional challenge is not adjudicated in the appellate order, the omission constitutes a mistake apparent from the record amenable to rectification, but a ground already considered on merits does not warrant recall merely because the applicant seeks a different outcome.

---