Rectification power under section 254(2) cannot reopen a matter; recall was refused for absence of any apparent record error.

Rectification under section 254(2) is confined to correcting a mistake apparent from the record, and cannot be used to reopen or reargue a matter already decided. The assessee's miscellaneous applications sought recall of an order dismissing stay petitions as withdrawn, but they did not identify any patent error in the record. On that basis, the Tribunal held that the applications were not maintainable and rejected them, refusing to recall or amend its earlier order.

---

---

Issues: Whether the miscellaneous applications seeking recall of the order dismissing the stay petitions as withdrawn were maintainable in the absence of any mistake apparent from the record under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The Tribunal reiterated that its power to amend or recall an earlier order is confined strictly to rectification of a mistake apparent from the record. A party invoking section 254(2) must clearly identify such a patent error. The applications before the Tribunal did not disclose any apparent mistake in the order dismissing the stay petitions as withdrawn, and the attempt was in substance to reopen the matter and reargue it, which lies beyond the scope of rectification jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The miscellaneous applications were not maintainable and were rejected.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal refused to recall its earlier order and held that, absent a manifest error on the record, the order could not be amended under the rectification power.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 254(2) permits amendment or recall of an order only for a mistake apparent from the record, and it cannot be used to reopen or reargue a matter decided earlier.

---