https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407936 Rectification under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act is confined to patent mistakes apparent from the record and cannot be used to reargue a reasoned order or seek review on debatable factual or legal issues. The Tribunal found that its earlier order had already dealt with the Department's objections on the coordinate-bench decision, incriminating material, third-party statements, and denial of cross-examination. The grievances in the miscellaneous applications therefore did not disclose any manifest error, but only a challenge to the reasoning adopted. The applications were held not maintainable and were rejected, leaving the earlier appellate order undisturbed. en-us Thu, 18 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 25 May 2021 13:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407936 Rectification under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act is confined to patent mistakes apparent from the record and cannot be used to reargue a reasoned order or seek review on debatable factual or legal issues. The Tribunal found that its earlier order had already dealt with the Department's objections on the coordinate-bench decision, incriminating material, third-party statements, and denial of cross-examination. The grievances in the miscellaneous applications therefore did not disclose any manifest error, but only a challenge to the reasoning adopted. The applications were held not maintainable and were rejected, leaving the earlier appellate order undisturbed. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 18 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407936