https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21809 HC held that the scope of section 254(2) is confined to rectification of mistakes apparent from the record and does not extend to recalling an order in entirety, which would amount to a fresh adjudication beyond legislative intent. The effective appellate order remains the one passed under section 254(1), with any rectification order merging into it and having no independent existence. Recalling is permissible only under rule 24 of the ITAT Rules in ex parte situations, not under section 254(2). As the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by recalling its earlier order on penalty relating to inflated salary and wage claims, the impugned miscellaneous order was quashed and the writ petition allowed. en-us Mon, 02 Dec 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Dec 2025 12:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21809 HC held that the scope of section 254(2) is confined to rectification of mistakes apparent from the record and does not extend to recalling an order in entirety, which would amount to a fresh adjudication beyond legislative intent. The effective appellate order remains the one passed under section 254(1), with any rectification order merging into it and having no independent existence. Recalling is permissible only under rule 24 of the ITAT Rules in ex parte situations, not under section 254(2). As the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by recalling its earlier order on penalty relating to inflated salary and wage claims, the impugned miscellaneous order was quashed and the writ petition allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 02 Dec 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21809