https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119570 Section 254(2) does not permit a party to seek reappreciation of seized documents, witness statements or retraction evidence under the guise of rectification. A different possible reading of loose papers or a fresh challenge to the evidentiary value of a statement recorded under section 132(4) may raise a factual debate, but it is not a patent mistake apparent from the record. Matters already addressed in the original order cannot be reopened through a miscellaneous application merely because another view is suggested. The Tribunal therefore treated the application as an impermissible review request and found it not maintainable under section 254(2). en-us Thu, 08 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Jul 2012 18:04:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119570 Section 254(2) does not permit a party to seek reappreciation of seized documents, witness statements or retraction evidence under the guise of rectification. A different possible reading of loose papers or a fresh challenge to the evidentiary value of a statement recorded under section 132(4) may raise a factual debate, but it is not a patent mistake apparent from the record. Matters already addressed in the original order cannot be reopened through a miscellaneous application merely because another view is suggested. The Tribunal therefore treated the application as an impermissible review request and found it not maintainable under section 254(2). Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 08 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119570