https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468788 A recall application under section 254(2) does not lie where the Tribunal has already consciously examined and decided the delay-condonation issue. Here, the appeals had been filed with substantial delay, and the explanation based on the driver's conduct was found unsupported by independent evidence and insufficient to show sufficient cause. As the earlier order disclosed no patent mistake or apparent error on the record, the miscellaneous applications seeking recall were rejected as not maintainable on that ground. en-us Thu, 30 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 May 2026 19:00:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468788 A recall application under section 254(2) does not lie where the Tribunal has already consciously examined and decided the delay-condonation issue. Here, the appeals had been filed with substantial delay, and the explanation based on the driver's conduct was found unsupported by independent evidence and insufficient to show sufficient cause. As the earlier order disclosed no patent mistake or apparent error on the record, the miscellaneous applications seeking recall were rejected as not maintainable on that ground. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 30 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468788