Judgment : B.M. Lal, J. 1. A short question is involved in this petition and that is as to whether in the absence of any statutory provision under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), the Tribunal has any power, authority or jurisdiction to review and recall its order passed under Section 256(1) of the Act? 2. IT appears that by the impugned order dated December 22, 1993 (annexure "5"), the Tribunal recalled its earlier order dated September 8, 1993, which was passed under Section 256(1) of the Act rejecting a reference application of respondent No. 2. Sri Bharat Ji Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that under the Act there is no provision under which the Tribunal can review or recall its order passed under Section 256(1) of the Act and, therefore, the impugned order dated December 22, 1993, reviewing and recalling the earlier order dated September 8, 1993, is illegal and without jurisdiction and, therefore, cannot be allowed to stand. 3. SRI Shakeel Ahmad, learned counsel for the respondents, contended that under the Act itself there is specific provision, i.e., Section 254 of the Act, under which the Tribunal has inherent power to amend any order passed by it with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the : record and, therefore, the Tribunal has every power, authority and jurisdiction to recall its earlier order and, consequently, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is well within its jurisdiction and is not liable to be interfered with by this court. 4. HEARD learned counsel for the parties. A bare perusal of Section 254 of the Act reveals that Sub-section (1) of Section 254 confers ample powers on the Tribunal to pass such orders in any appeal filed before it as it thinks fit. Sub-section (2) of Section 254 postulates that the Tribunal may amend any order passed by it under Sub-section (1) of Section 254 with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record. Thus, the power exercisable under Sub-section (2) of Section 254 is subject to two limitations. Firstly, it has to be confined to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record and secondly it has to be confined to an order passed under Sub-section (1) of Section 254. Thus, the power exercisable under Sub-section (2) of Section 254 is subject to two limitations. Firstly, it has to be confined to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record and secondly it has to be confined to an order passed under Sub-section (1) of Section 254. Accordingly, it is apparent that the power exercisable under Sub-section (2) of Section 254 is not available to be exercised for amending any order passed by it under any section other than Sub-section (1) of Section 25*4. In other words, the power of the Tribunal conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 254 for rectifying any mistake apparent from the record cannot be exercised by the Tribunal to recall any order passed by it under Section 256 of the Act. For ready reference the provisions of Section 254(1) and (2) of the Act are quoted below : "254. Orders of Appellate Tribunal.--(1) The Appellate Tribunal may, after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit. (2) The Appellate Tribunal may, at any time within four years from the date of the order, with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it under Sub-section (I), and shall make such amendment if the mistake is brought to its notice by the assessee or the Assessing Officer." 5. FURTHER, reviewing and recalling an order is one thing and rectifying a mistake in the order which is apparent from the record is quite another. In exercise of power to review and recall an order, even the whole result can be reversed whereas in exercise of power to rectify a mistake apparent from the record arithmetical or clerical mistakes can be corrected. 6. IN Jose T. Mooken v. CIT (No. 2) [1979] 117 ITR 921 (Ker), CIT v. Suresh Kumar [1990] 186 ITR 114 (P and H), CIT v. Globe Transport Corporation [1992] 195 ITR 311 (Raj), CWT v. R.S. Seth Ghisalal Modi Family Trust [1988] 169 ITR 530 (MP), CWT v. Devi Chand Sawhney [1991] 187 ITR (St.) 43 (SC), CIT v. K.L Bhatia [1990] 182 ITR 361 (Del) and Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji, AIR 1970 SC 1273 , it is ruled that the Tribunal has no power to review or recall its order. In view of the discussions made above keeping in view the ratio laid down in the aforesaid cases and in the absence of any statutory provision for review by Tribunal, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by Tribunal recalling its earlier order which was passed under Section 256 of the Act, deserves to be quashed. 7. IN the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated December 22, 1993, is hereby quashed. There shall however, be no order as to costs.