https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211875 Section 254(2) confines the Tribunal to rectification of a patent mistake apparent from the record and does not permit review, rehearing, or recall of a concluded appellate order. Rule 24 was inapplicable because the appeal had been heard with both parties present, so the order was not ex parte. Alleged procedural unfairness, non-consideration of submissions, reliance on un-cited case law, and factual error did not establish any patent mistake or prejudice warranting reopening. The Tribunal therefore declined to recall its earlier order and the miscellaneous application failed. en-us Fri, 25 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Apr 2012 14:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211875 Section 254(2) confines the Tribunal to rectification of a patent mistake apparent from the record and does not permit review, rehearing, or recall of a concluded appellate order. Rule 24 was inapplicable because the appeal had been heard with both parties present, so the order was not ex parte. Alleged procedural unfairness, non-consideration of submissions, reliance on un-cited case law, and factual error did not establish any patent mistake or prejudice warranting reopening. The Tribunal therefore declined to recall its earlier order and the miscellaneous application failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 25 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211875