Recall under section 254(2) fails where delay condonation was already considered and no apparent error exists.

A recall application under section 254(2) does not lie where the Tribunal has already consciously examined and decided the delay-condonation issue. Here, the appeals had been filed with substantial delay, and the explanation based on the driver's conduct was found unsupported by independent evidence and insufficient to show sufficient cause. As the earlier order disclosed no patent mistake or apparent error on the record, the miscellaneous applications seeking recall were rejected as not maintainable on that ground.

---

---

Issues: Whether the miscellaneous applications under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 seeking recall of the Tribunal's earlier order dismissing the appeals for delay disclosed any mistake apparent from the record.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the appeals had been filed with a delay of 867 days each and that the earlier order had already examined the explanation offered for the delay. The explanation based on the driver's conduct was found to be unsupported by independent evidence and not sufficient to establish sufficient cause. Since the earlier order reflected a conscious consideration of the delay condonation issue, the Tribunal held that no patent mistake or apparent error existed in that order.

Conclusion: The applications for recall under section 254(2) were not maintainable on the asserted ground and were rejected.

---