Facts of the Case

Shree Manni Lal Shikshan Samiti, Allahabad, an educational society, had earlier been subjected to appellate proceedings before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Following the Tribunal’s decision, the assessee filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking rectification or recall of the order on the ground that certain errors or omissions existed in the Tribunal’s decision.

The application invoked Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which empowers the Tribunal to amend its order to rectify mistakes apparent from the record.

Issues Involved

Whether the alleged errors pointed out by the assessee constituted a “mistake apparent from the record” warranting rectification or recall of the Tribunal’s earlier order under Section 254(2).

Petitioner’s (Assessee’s) Arguments

The assessee contended that the Tribunal’s earlier order suffered from apparent mistakes, including failure to consider relevant facts or submissions. It was argued that these errors materially affected the outcome of the case and therefore required correction or recall of the order in the interest of justice.

Respondent’s (Revenue’s) Arguments

The Revenue opposed the application, contending that the assessee was effectively seeking a review of the Tribunal’s decision, which is not permissible under Section 254(2). It was argued that rectification powers are limited to correcting obvious errors and do not extend to reappraisal of evidence or reconsideration of issues already decided.

Court Order / Findings (ITAT)

The Tribunal examined the scope of its powers under Section 254(2) and reiterated that rectification is permissible only for mistakes that are apparent on the face of the record — such as clerical errors, computational mistakes, or manifest omissions.

Issues requiring detailed examination, fresh reasoning, or re-argument cannot be addressed through a Miscellaneous Application, as the Tribunal has no power of review. The Tribunal evaluated whether the errors pointed out fell within the permissible scope of rectification and disposed of the application accordingly.

Important Clarification

The ruling emphasizes that Section 254(2) does not confer review jurisdiction on the Tribunal. Only patent and obvious mistakes can be corrected. Parties cannot use rectification proceedings as a substitute for appeal or for re-arguing the case.

Link to download the order –https://itat.gov.in/public/files/upload/1582193221-SHREE%20MANNI-19(MA)%20&%20224.p

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.