https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240993 Rectification under section 254(2) is confined to patent mistakes apparent from the record and cannot be used to seek a rehearing or review of issues already decided on merits. The Tribunal held that the application, which challenged findings on rejection of books, stock valuation, estimation of unrecorded sales, and the resulting addition, was in substance a request to revisit concluded factual and legal determinations. As no apparent mistake was shown, no recall or rectification was warranted, and the miscellaneous application was dismissed as an impermissible disguised review. en-us Wed, 06 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 15 Dec 2013 10:30:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240993 Rectification under section 254(2) is confined to patent mistakes apparent from the record and cannot be used to seek a rehearing or review of issues already decided on merits. The Tribunal held that the application, which challenged findings on rejection of books, stock valuation, estimation of unrecorded sales, and the resulting addition, was in substance a request to revisit concluded factual and legal determinations. As no apparent mistake was shown, no recall or rectification was warranted, and the miscellaneous application was dismissed as an impermissible disguised review. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 06 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240993