https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59401 Rectification under section 254(2) is confined to an obvious mistake apparent from the record and cannot be used to seek review, rehearing, or reconsideration of the same issue. A second miscellaneous application on an identical ground was treated as not maintainable, and the request to recall the Tribunal's earlier order was rejected because no patent error was shown. The document also notes that later Supreme Court precedent on section 132(4A) did not alter the result where the addition was based on the contents of seized material, surrounding evidence, and the block-assessment framework rather than on a bare statutory presumption. en-us Mon, 18 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Dec 2010 14:48:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59401 Rectification under section 254(2) is confined to an obvious mistake apparent from the record and cannot be used to seek review, rehearing, or reconsideration of the same issue. A second miscellaneous application on an identical ground was treated as not maintainable, and the request to recall the Tribunal's earlier order was rejected because no patent error was shown. The document also notes that later Supreme Court precedent on section 132(4A) did not alter the result where the addition was based on the contents of seized material, surrounding evidence, and the block-assessment framework rather than on a bare statutory presumption. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 18 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59401