Delhi High Court: Providing Email Services Does Not Make Google a Public Functionary  ||  Patna HC: Lying on a Woman Without Any Act Toward Penetration Rules Out Attempted Rape  ||  Delhi High Court: Litigants Cannot Claim a Bench Change as a Right After Roster Changes  ||  Calcutta High Court: Peaceful Protest is a Democratic Right and Cannot Be Treated as an Offence  ||  Delhi High Court: Trial Courts Must Verify an Accused’s Address Before Declaring Absconding  ||  Gujarat High Court: Judicial Officer Cannot Seek HC Judge’s Transfer over Housing Grievance  ||  Delhi High Court Orders 125 Websites Using Jio Trademark for Lottery and Gaming to Be Suspended  ||  MP High Court Strikes Down 27% OBC Quota, Restores Reservation to 14%  ||  Supreme Court: Hindu Widow’s Limited Estate Became Absolute under Succession Act  ||  Supreme Court: Prima Facie Arbitration Agreement Requires Referral to Arbitration    

Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax vs. Alert Detective Force, Bangalore - (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) (17 Feb 2023)

Non-consideration of the decision of the High Court/Supreme Court constitutes mistake apparent from record and is rectifiable within the meaning of Section 254(2) of the IT Act

MANU/IL/0069/2023

Direct Taxation

Present is a Miscellaneous Petition (MP) filed by the Revenue under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) praying for rectification of the order passed by present Tribunal. By the aforesaid order, this Tribunal held that the Revenue authorities were not justified in making a disallowance on delayed payment of employee's contribution to ESI and PF made by the assessee beyond the due date as prescribed under the relevant law relating to ESI and PF for deposit of employees share of contribution, by invoking the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act, if the said contributions are paid within the due date for filing return of income under Section 139(1) of the IT Act.

Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange has held that, non-consideration of the decision of the jurisdictional high court/Supreme Court constitutes mistake apparent from record and is rectifiable within the meaning of Section 254(2) of the IT Act.

Article 141 of the Constitution of India, 1950 provides that the law declared by Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India. The law laid down by Supreme Court operates retrospectively and is deemed to the law as it has always been unless, the Supreme Court, says that its ruling will only operate prospectively.

There is a mistake apparent on record in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT though rendered subsequent to the order passed by the Tribunal and has to be rectified by holding that, the disallowance made by the revenue authorities under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act was justified. The orders of the Tribunal will stand modified/rectified accordingly. Petition allowed.

Tags : MISTAKE   RECTIFICATION   PROVISION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved