Rectification under section 254(2) is limited to apparent errors; a rehearing request was rejected as impermissible review.

A miscellaneous application under section 254(2) was found to seek a rehearing on the merits of the Tribunal's earlier order rather than correction of any patent mistake. The Tribunal noted that rectification under section 254(2) is confined to mistakes apparent from the record and does not permit review or reappreciation of the case. As the applicant identified no obvious or manifest error and merely repeated arguments already considered and rejected, the application was not maintainable and was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the miscellaneous application seeking recall of the Tribunal's earlier order disclosed any mistake apparent from the record so as to warrant rectification under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The application substantially sought a rehearing on the merits of the earlier decision rather than pointing out any patent, obvious, or manifest error in the order. The scope of rectification under section 254(2) is confined to correction of mistakes apparent from the record and does not extend to review or reappreciation of the merits of the case. The applicant failed to identify any such apparent mistake and instead repeated arguments already considered and rejected.

Conclusion: The miscellaneous application was not maintainable under section 254(2) and was rejected.

---