Rectification under section 254(2) is limited to patent errors; recall cannot be used to reopen merits or reappreciate evidence.

Rectification under section 254(2) is confined to patent, obvious and self-evident mistakes in the record and cannot be used to review or reopen a concluded appellate decision. The Tribunal held that the assessee's request for recall, based on alleged non-consideration of the survey report under section 133A and a departmental representatives' report, amounted in substance to a reappreciation of merits. As the material had already been considered and no binding report or apparent factual error was shown, the applications did not disclose any mistake apparent from the record and were rightly rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal could recall its earlier order under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the ground of an alleged mistake apparent from the record, including non-consideration of the survey report under section 133A and the report of the departmental representatives.

Analysis: The controlling principle is that rectification under section 254(2) is confined to patent, obvious and self-evident mistakes and does not extend to review or re-appreciation of a debatable issue. The record showed that the Tribunal had already considered the rival contentions on the nature of nursery income and the assessee was seeking, in substance, a reconsideration of the merits. The alleged omission regarding the survey report did not warrant recall because the material had been considered in the connected appellate proceedings and the issue turned on the legal character of the income, not on any patent factual error. The alleged report of the departmental representatives was also not shown to be a report directed by the Tribunal or a binding piece of evidence whose omission created an apparent mistake. In the circumstances, the applications amounted to an impermissible attempt to reopen a concluded decision.

Conclusion: The Tribunal had no basis to recall its earlier order under section 254(2); the applications were rightly rejected.

Final Conclusion: The decision affirms that rectification cannot be used as a substitute for review, and only manifest errors apparent from the record can justify interference with a final appellate order.

Ratio Decidendi: A debatable issue or an alleged failure to reappreciate evidence does not constitute a mistake apparent from the record under section 254(2); only a patent, obvious and self-evident error can justify rectification or recall.

---