https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468188 Under section 254(2), omission to adjudicate a specific appeal ground can be a mistake apparent from the record when the ground raises a substantive statutory or jurisdictional challenge. The ITAT held that the limitation objection in ground 5 was already considered on merits, so no rectification was warranted. By contrast, non-adjudication of ground 6 on absence of notice under section 143(2) and ground 7 on the applicability of sections 130, 144B and 153A, along with CBDT circulars on faceless reassessment, constituted apparent mistakes and justified limited recall of the earlier order. The earlier order was therefore recalled only to the extent of grounds 6 and 7. en-us Mon, 19 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 20 Apr 2026 15:56:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468188 Under section 254(2), omission to adjudicate a specific appeal ground can be a mistake apparent from the record when the ground raises a substantive statutory or jurisdictional challenge. The ITAT held that the limitation objection in ground 5 was already considered on merits, so no rectification was warranted. By contrast, non-adjudication of ground 6 on absence of notice under section 143(2) and ground 7 on the applicability of sections 130, 144B and 153A, along with CBDT circulars on faceless reassessment, constituted apparent mistakes and justified limited recall of the earlier order. The earlier order was therefore recalled only to the extent of grounds 6 and 7. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 19 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468188