JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by S. K. Seth J. This is appeal under section 260A of Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act ), at instance of Revenue. Appeal is directed against order dated March 31, 2004, passed by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ITAT for short) in M. A. No. 61/Ind/2003. By order impugned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal allowed application filed by assessee under section 254(2) of Act. Hence, this appeal, which was admitted for final hearing on following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was justified in entertaining application made by assessee under section 254(2) of Income-tax Act, seeking recalling of original appellate order dated October 17, 2003, passed in I. T. A. No. 577/Ind/98? (ii) Whether any case as required under section 254(2) of Income-tax Act is made out for purpose of recalling well reasoned orders passed on merits after giving due opportunity to parties? facts giving rise to this appeal are as under. assessee is carrying on business of manufacture and sale of automobile tyre-tubes and fabric at Pithampur, District Dhar. assessment period involved in appeal is 1990- 91. assessee filed return showing nil income. Assessing Officer ( AO ), did not accept return and made certain additions, but allowed assessee to capitalise result of tyre-division as pre-operative expenses. Against addition, assessee preferred appeal before Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). said appeal was partially allowed and so far as additions made by Assessing Officer were concerned, it was set aside and matter was remanded back to ascertain genuineness of transactions leading to addition of income. So far as question of permitting assessee to capitalise results of tyre division as pre-operative expenses, it is pertinent to point out that proceeding relating to assessment year 1991-92 was finalised during pendency of appeal and categorical finding was recorded that commercial production actually started on May 4, 1988, and not on February 2, 1992, as claimed by assessee. In view of this finding, assessee sought leave of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to raise additional ground to carry forward business losses of previous years instead of pre-operative expenses. It being pure question of law to be determined on basis of material already available on record, Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed assessee to raise additional ground. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) after hearing rival submissions, by detailed order accepted contention of assessee that pre-operative expenses intended to be capitalised, be treated as business loss and loss so determined be carried forward to set off against future income. Against order of Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) based on this finding, Revenue preferred appeal to Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal by order dated October 17, 2003, found that Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) did not commit any mistake in permitting assessee to raise additional ground, however, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal based upon its own order passed in I. T. A. No. 139/Ind/1996 made scathing remarks against learned counsel for assessee and held that assessee was not entitled to carry for ward business losses. Against order dated October 17, 2003, assessee filed application under section 254(2) of Act seeking rectification of mistake on ground that neither Revenue nor assessee relied upon order passed in I. T. A. No. 139/Ind/1996. By order impugned, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal after hearing rival submissions, allowed application filed by assessee under section 254(2) and recalled order. Hence, this appeal by Revenue under section 260A of Act. According to Shri R. L. Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for Revenue, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in garb of exercising powers under section 254(2), could not review its own order. He further submitted that under Act, there is no provision which permits Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to review its own order. He submitted that Income-tax Appellate Tribunal being quasi-judicial authority, it cannot review its own order unless power is expressly conferred on it by statute under which it derives its jurisdiction. In support of his submissions, Shri Jain relied upon two decisions of Rajasthan High Court reported in CIT v. Roop Narain Sardar Mal [2004] 267 ITR 601, CIT v. Bannalal Jat [2005] 273 ITR 259 and decision of this court reported in CIT v. Malwa Texturising P. Ltd. [2007] 292 ITR 488. Per contra, Shri Chaphekar, learned senior counsel appearing for assessee, submitted that order of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal passed in appeal suffered from error apparent from record. When this was pointed out by filing application under section 254(2), Incometax Appellate Tribunal rightly allowed miscellaneous application and recalled its own order dated October 17, 2003, by order impugned. According to learned counsel by no stretch of imagination, it could be said that in garb of exercising powers under section 254(2), Income-tax Appellate Tribunal reviewed its own order. He placed reliance on decision of Supreme Court in case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 295 ITR 466. After bestowing our considerable thoughts to rival submissions and decisions relied upon, we feel that there is no quarrel with settled principles of law enunciated in various decisions. We are satisfied that in factual context of case in hand, order impugned is not out come of review. Section 254(2) empowers of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to rectify any mistake in its order, provided it is apparent from record, and such mistake is brought to notice of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal within four years from date of order. What is mistake apparent from record was examined and explained by their Lordships of Supreme Court in T. S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Brothers [1971] 82 ITR 50. According to aforesaid decision, mistake which is obvious and patent and does not require long drawn arguments to discover, would be mistake apparent from record . This type of mistake in order can be rectified under section 254(2) of Act. In our considered opinion, reliance placed by Shri Jain on decisions noted supra, does not advance case of Revenue as they are clearly distinguishable on facts. In Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 295 ITR 466 (SC), Income-tax Appellate Tribunal allowed application under section 254(2), Income-tax Appellate Tribunal allowed application under section 254(2), when it was pointed out that decision of co-ordinate Bench escaped Income-tax Appellate Tribunal s attention at time of passing of final order. order of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was challenged by Revenue in appeal to High Court. said appeal was allowed and against order of High Court, assessee went to Supreme Court. In this factual back- drop, it was held that section 254(2) is based on fundamental principle that no party should be prejudiced on account of mistake, error or omission. Adornment to wronged party by court or Tribunal for mistake, error or omission has nothing to do with concept of inherent power of review. In present case, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal allowed Revenue s appeal by placing reliance on its own decision in I. T. A. No. 139/Ind/1996 causing prejudice to assessee while deciding question of carry forward business losses against assessee. This mistake was acknowledged and rectified by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal when it was pointed out in application under section 254(2) of Act. In view of foregoing discussion, we are clearly of view that Tribunal was justified in invoking its powers under section 254 ibid in facts of this case because of mistake apparent on record rightly rectified by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal by order impugned. We, therefore, find no ground to take any other view than what is taken by Tribunal. Our answer to both questions would be in affirmative, i.e., in favour of assessee and against Revenue. Before parting with case, we would like to observe that self-restraint and temperate language is virtue of judicial or quasi-judicial authority. Judicial language does not use whip-lashing; scathing or disparaging remarks. These are uncalled for deciding lis. presiding officer is expected to watch forensic battle of wits from higher pedestal rather than becoming part of din and dust of battle. With this word of caution, we do not wish to say more in view of fact that by order impugned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has recalled order, thus remarks stand obliterated. In result, this appeal fails and it is hereby dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 1,500, if certified. *** COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. S. KUMAR TYRES MFG. COMPANY