The assessee filed return for AY 2019–20. CPC disallowed employees’ PF/ESI contribution u/s 36(1)(va) read with S.  43B, adjusted u/s 143(1)(a). CIT(A) upheld the addition relying on Expl. 5 to S. 43B (Finance Act, 2021). On appeal, ITAT allowed the claim holding amendment prospective, relying on  CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2009 ) 319 ITR 306(SC) and CIT v. Ghatge Patil Transport Ltd. (2014 ) 368 ITR 749, Bom)( HC)  Revenue filed MA u/s 254(2) relying on Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd v.CIT (2022 ) 143 taxmann.com 178/448 ITR 518 (  SC). ITAT  recalled its earlier order, holding Checkmate constituted “mistake apparent from record”, relying on ACIT v.  Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (2008   305 ITR 227, SC).On writ the Bombay High Court held that S.254(2) powers are akin to review under CPC O.47 R.1. Explanation to O.47 R.1 bars review on ground of a subsequent decision of superior court. Subsequent ruling cannot constitute a “mistake apparent from record”. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange (Supra ) dealt with a prior binding decision not noticed; it does not lay down that subsequent decisions can be basis for recall. The Tribunal therefore exceeded its jurisdiction in recalling its order. Writ petition allowed and ITAT orders dated 17-09-2024  set aside. Revenue, however, is not precluded from filing appeal u/s 260A against original ITAT order dated 05-09-2022. (W.P. No.1489/2025 & ITXA(L) No.21746/2025, dt. 12-09-2025)  (AY. 2019 -20 )