Rectification under section 254(2) cannot be used to review a concluded ITAT decision absent a patent record error.

A Miscellaneous Application under section 254(2) cannot be used to seek review or reconsideration of a concluded ITAT order unless a patent mistake apparent from the record is shown. The Tribunal found that its earlier decision had already considered the effect of a registered development agreement cum GPA and the authorities governing the year of taxability of capital gains. The applicant's grievance merely sought re-argument of the merits, which is impermissible in rectification proceedings. Relief relating to tax allegedly paid for a different assessment year was also refused as outside the scope of the dispute. The rectification petition was rejected and the earlier appellate order remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Miscellaneous Application disclosed any mistake apparent from record warranting rectification under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and whether the Tribunal could revisit its earlier findings on taxability of capital gains arising from the registered development agreement cum GPA.

Analysis: The application sought to re-agitate the earlier decision by contending that the ratio of the Supreme Court decision on transfer in pursuance of a development agreement had not been properly applied. The Tribunal found that its earlier order had already considered the relevant legal principles, including the effect of a registered development agreement cum GPA and the governing authorities on the year of taxability. It held that the plea raised in the Miscellaneous Application did not disclose any patent error on the face of the record, but amounted only to a request for review of the earlier order, which is impermissible in rectification proceedings. The ancillary plea regarding capital gains tax allegedly paid for assessment year 2021-22 was also held to be outside the scope of the dispute, which concerned assessment year 2016-17.

Conclusion: No mistake apparent from record was made out, and the request to recall or amend the earlier appellate order was rejected. The Tribunal also refused to grant any relief concerning tax paid for a different assessment year.

Final Conclusion: The rectification petition failed in limine, and the earlier appellate determination was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A Miscellaneous Application under section 254(2) cannot be used to seek review or reconsideration of a concluded appellate decision in the absence of a patent mistake apparent from the record.

---