https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14338 The dominant issue was whether the Appellate Tribunal could, under s. 254(2), rectify an "error apparent on the face of the record" by recalling its earlier order where it had failed to decide a material issue, and whether such recall amounted to impermissible review. The HC held that s. 254(2) extends beyond clerical or arithmetical errors to substantive and procedural mistakes, including inadvertent non-adjudication of a question going to the root of the matter; correction requires recall and a fresh decision after affording hearing, to comply with natural justice, and this is not review but rectification ex debito justitiae. Consequently, no substantial question of law arose and the appeal was dismissed in limine. en-us Tue, 04 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Dec 2025 20:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14338 The dominant issue was whether the Appellate Tribunal could, under s. 254(2), rectify an "error apparent on the face of the record" by recalling its earlier order where it had failed to decide a material issue, and whether such recall amounted to impermissible review. The HC held that s. 254(2) extends beyond clerical or arithmetical errors to substantive and procedural mistakes, including inadvertent non-adjudication of a question going to the root of the matter; correction requires recall and a fresh decision after affording hearing, to comply with natural justice, and this is not review but rectification ex debito justitiae. Consequently, no substantial question of law arose and the appeal was dismissed in limine. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 04 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14338