https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22160 Section 254(2) permits rectification only of a mistake apparent from the record, not a general review of an appellate order. The Orissa HC noted that the Tribunal's recall order did not identify any such mistake, did not engage with the statutory threshold, and relied on an unreasoned acceptance of an affidavit as sufficient proof. A non-speaking rectification order could not justify recall of the earlier appellate decision in full, so the recall was unsustainable and was quashed, with the matter remitted for fresh consideration of whether section 254(2) was in fact attracted. en-us Wed, 20 Nov 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Dec 2009 17:24:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22160 Section 254(2) permits rectification only of a mistake apparent from the record, not a general review of an appellate order. The Orissa HC noted that the Tribunal's recall order did not identify any such mistake, did not engage with the statutory threshold, and relied on an unreasoned acceptance of an affidavit as sufficient proof. A non-speaking rectification order could not justify recall of the earlier appellate decision in full, so the recall was unsustainable and was quashed, with the matter remitted for fresh consideration of whether section 254(2) was in fact attracted. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 20 Nov 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22160