S. 254(2) : Rectification of mistake apparent on record – Subsequent judgment of Supreme Court cannot be ground for recall/rectification – Tribunal having followed binding jurisdictional High Court judgment at the time of passing original order – No mistake apparent from record – Miscellaneous Application dismissed. [S. 36(1)(va), 43B]
The Assessing Officer, while processing the return under section 143(1), disallowed employees’ contribution to PF and ESI on the ground of delayed payment under the respective statutes. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance. The Tribunal, in the original appellate order dated 31-05-2022, deleted the disallowance by following the binding judgment of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Ghatge Patil Transport Ltd (2014) 368 ITR 749) (Bom) (HC) . holding that such payments made before the due date of filing the return are allowable. The Revenue filed Miscellaneous Applications under section 254(2) seeking recall/rectification of the Tribunal’s order in view of the subsequent Supreme Court judgment in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT. The Tribunal held that jurisdiction under section 254(2) is limited to rectifying patent and obvious mistakes apparent on the record and that a subsequent judgment, even of the Supreme Court, cannot be a ground for rectification if, on the date of the original order, the Tribunal had correctly applied the law as it then stood. Relying on the recent Bombay High Court judgment in Vaibhav Maruti Dombale v. Assistant Registrar, ITAT, the Tribunal held that no mistake apparent from the record was shown and dismissed the Revenue’s Miscellaneous Applications. ( MA Nos. 35 to 37/Mum/2023 (arising out of ITA Nos. 137 to 139/Mum/2022 dt. 08-12-2025.) (AYs. 2017-18 to 2019-20,)
Global Waste Management Cell Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (Mum.)(Trib.) www.itatonline.org
[Coram : Hon’ble Shri Om Prakash Kant, AM and Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal JM]