Telangana High Court: Barring People with over Two Children From Polls Violates No Fundamental Right  ||  Del HC Clarifies That Breach of Promise to Marry is Not The Same as False Promise Amounting To Rape  ||  Delhi High Court Rules Law Students Cannot be Barred From Exams For Not Meeting Minimum Attendance  ||  Delhi HC: Only a Sessions Court, Not an Ilaqa Magistrate, Can Order Further Probe After Committal  ||  Allahabad High Court: Protecting Homebuyers’ Interests is Paramount in Real Estate Insolvency  ||  Allahabad HC: Police Can Freeze Accounts on Suspicion; Affected Party May Seek Magistrate’s Relief  ||  NCLAT: Claimants Must Prove Asset Ownership; Liquidator Need Not Establish Title of Assets in Custody  ||  NCLAT: Director’s Resignation Doesn’t Release Personal Guarantor from Continuing Guarantee Liability  ||  NCLAT: Delay Condonable When Composite Appeal Filed in Time is Refiled after Registry’s Objection  ||  Supreme Court: Upper Floors Can be Converted for Commercial Use Only after Paying Conversion Charges    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved