Judgment :- 1. At the request of counsel, both the Petitions are being disposed of at the stage of admission. 2. These two Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenge a common order dated 17th October, 2014 passed under section 254 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the 'Act') by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the 'Tribunal') allowing the application for rectification filed by the Revenue. The common impugned order dated 17th October 2014 was passed on two applications seeking to rectify a common order dated 29th December 2010 dismissing two appeals of the Revenue on quantum and penalty for block period 1.4.1988 to 17.12.1988. 3. By the impugned order dated 17th October, 2014 in exercise of its powers under section 254 (2) of the Act recalled the common order dated 29th December, 2010 passed under section 254 (1) of the Act relating to the Block period 1st April, 1988 to 17th December, 1988 both in quantum and penalty proceedings. Thereafter the impugned order directed that both the appeals on quantum and penalty be placed before the regular bench to be decided on merits. 4. The genesis of the present proceedings is a search action under section 132 of the Act of one M/s R.K. Madhani and Co. a sister concern of the petitioner. Consequent to search action on M/s R.K. Madhani & Co, assessment was framed upon the petitioner. The Tribunal by order dated 29th December, 2010 set aside the proceedings against the petitioner. This on the ground that it is an admitted position that no satisfaction under section 158 BD of the Act was recorded by the Assessing Officer of M/s R.K. Madhani & Co in respect of the petitioner. Thus holding that in the absence of above satisfaction, the Assessing Officer of the petitioner was not vested with jurisdiction to frame the block assessment in respect of the petitioner. 5. The revenue by its Misc. Application dated 18th July, 2011 and 12th September, 2013 one in respect of quantum assessment and other in respect of penalty sought to rectify a common order dated 29th December, 2010 of the Tribunal in respect of quantum and penalty respectively. In its Misc. Application for rectification the revenue pointed out that the Assessing Officer of M/s R. K. Madhani & Co. In its Misc. Application for rectification the revenue pointed out that the Assessing Officer of M/s R. K. Madhani & Co. (person searched) had recorded a satisfaction of undisclosed income belonging to the petitioner by letter dated 21st August 2000 addressed to the Assessing Officer of the petitioner. Thus the order dated 29th December 2010 proceeding on the basis that admittedly no satisfaction was recorded resulted in an error apparent on record warranting rectification under section 254 (2) of the Act. 6. Dr. Shivram learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in support of the petition submits as under : (A) The impugned order is without jurisdiction as there is no error apparent on record in the order dated 29th December, 2010 as the same was passed after having considered the revenue's submission with regard to recording satisfaction under section 158 BD of the Act; and (B) In the alternative and without prejudice to the above, the impugned order when recalling order dated 29th December, 2010 for fresh consideration cannot decide the issue on merits so as to foreclose the issue for the regular bench of the Tribunal before whom the appeal is to be posted for rehearing and disposal. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Mohanty learned counsel appearing for the revenue submits in support of the impugned order as under : (A) Order dated 29th December, 2010 proceeded on a fundamental error to the extent it proceeds on an admitted position that there was no satisfaction recorded under section 158 BD of the Act in respect of the petitioner. Thus, the rectification application under section 254 (2) of the Act was the only remedy available to the revenue to correct the order dated 29th December, 2010; and (B) The impugned order dated 17th October, 2014 calls for no interference as it is open to the petitioner to present its point of view before the Tribunal when the matter is heard by the bench to which the appeal has been restored. In these circumstances, it is submitted that no interference with the impugned order is warranted. 8. We find that in the common order dated 29th December,2010 the Tribunal had recorded the submissions of the Departmental's representative at paragraph 6 thereof to the effect that satisfaction recorded under section 158BC would be recording of a satisfaction even for purpose of section 158BD of the Act. 8. We find that in the common order dated 29th December,2010 the Tribunal had recorded the submissions of the Departmental's representative at paragraph 6 thereof to the effect that satisfaction recorded under section 158BC would be recording of a satisfaction even for purpose of section 158BD of the Act. Thus, according to the revenue there was recording of satisfaction. Inspite of recording the above submissions on behalf of the revenue yet paragraph 9 of the same order proceeds on the basis that it is an admitted position that no satisfaction under section 158 BD of the Act was recorded so as to vest jurisdiction in the Assessing Officer of the petitioner. The evidence of satisfaction being recorded is communication dated 21st August, 2000 addressed by the Assessing Officer of the person searched to the Assessing Officer of the petitioner. The petitioner also does not dispute communication dated 21st August, 2000 which is being relied upon by the revenue was a part of the record but submit that the same was considered by the Tribunal before passing the order dated 29th December, 2010. Therefore, we find no fault in the impugned order concluding that there was an error apparent on record in the order dated 29th December, 2010 as it does not deal with/or consider the communication dated 21st August, 2000 and deal with the revenue's contention that satisfaction in terms of section 158BD of the Act was recorded. 9. A similar situation arose before the Supreme Court in Honda SIEL Power Products Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 295 ITR 466/165 Taxman 307 (SC) and Asstt. CIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. [2008] 305 ITR 227 173 Taxman 322 (SC) In both the above cases the Tribunal had in exercise of its powers under section 254 (2) of the Act had recalled its earlier order as it had by mistake not considered a binding decision of the jurisdictional High Court. This recall by the Tribunal was upheld by the Apex Court on the fundamental principle of law that no prejudice should be caused to either of the parties appearing before the Tribunal by its decision based on a mistake apparent from the record. The Apex Court negatived the contention that such recall of an order would amount to review of its earlier orders. The Supreme Court held that mistake is a valid reason to recall an order. The Apex Court negatived the contention that such recall of an order would amount to review of its earlier orders. The Supreme Court held that mistake is a valid reason to recall an order. In the circumstances, the objections of the petitioner that the impugned order recalling the order dated 29th December 2010 is without jurisdiction is not sustainable. 10. The next submissions made in the alternative by the petitioner is that when the impugned order recalls its earlier order dated 29th December, 2010 and places the matter before another Bench to be considered afresh, it is not open to the Tribunal in the impugned order to decide any of the issues touching the merits including jurisdiction and thereafter place the matter before a regular bench for disposal. This placing of the matter before the regular Bench would become academic in respect of those matters which have already been dealt with by the Tribunal in an impugned order recalling the earlier order. 11. We find that the impugned order after correctly holding that there is an error apparent from the record recalling its earlier order dated 10th December 2010 proceeded further to make observations on the scope of the satisfaction dated 21st August 2000. In fact the concluding paragraph of the impugned order seeks to suggest that the issue of jurisdiction is decided and it is only on merits that the appeal is being placed before the regular bench of the Tribunal. This is impermissible as it would foreclose an issue which is to be heard and decided by the bench rehearing the appeal. Thus the impugned order is unsustainable to the extent it decides and/or makes observations on the satisfaction note dated 21st August 2000 is the context of jurisdiction. 12. Therefore, though the Tribunal would certainly be entitled to recall an order under section 254 (2) of the Act as it suffers from mistakes apparent from record, while recalling the order and placing it before a regular bench to adjudicate/decide the merits of the appeal it was not entitled/justified to observe on the merits of adjudication. Once an order is recalled and the appeal is to be placed before a regular bench for fresh consideration in a manner of speaking it restores status quo ante. Once an order is recalled and the appeal is to be placed before a regular bench for fresh consideration in a manner of speaking it restores status quo ante. At the hearing of the appeal all the issues are bound to be urged by the petitioner and considered by the Tribunal hearing the appeal. In this case, the impugned order while recalling the order dated 29th December, 2010 places the appeal before a regular bench to be decided on merits yet concludes that jurisdictional requirement to proceed against the petitioner is satisfied. The aforesaid decision and observations on the jurisdictional issue in the impugned order is unsustainable. 13. In view of the above, while we uphold the impugned order to the extent it holds that there is an error apparent on the record in the order dated 29th December, 2010 in not having considered the letter dated 21st August, 2000, we do not uphold the other observations made by the Tribunal in the impugned order with regard to the exact nature, scope, effect and consequences of the communication dated 21st August, 2000. The regular Bench of the Tribunal to whom the revenue's appeals both on quantum and penalty are restored for hearing would not be influenced in any manner by the observations made in the impugned order on the merits of the controversy. 14. It is also to be noted that when the original order dated 29th December, 2010 was passed the petitioner was allowed to make submissions under rule 27 of the Income Tax Rules in the absence of having filed a separate appeal. The benefit of the above direction of the Tribunal would be extended to the petitioner at the hearing of the appeal by the regular Bench of the Tribunal hearing the revenue's appeal consequent to the recall of the earlier order dated 10th December, 2010. This is particularly so as the revenue had consented when the appeals were originally heard to the petitioner making its submissions under Rule 27 of the Income Tax Rules in the absence of having filed a substantial appeal. 15. Petition is disposed of in terms of the above directions. No order as to costs.