Section 254(2) limits rectification to mistakes apparent at original order date; later law changes don't permit correction

High Court allowed the petition and set aside the ITAT's rectification under Section 254(2), holding the Tribunal erred in invoking that provision based on a subsequent Supreme Court decision. The HC found Section 254(2) permits correction only for mistakes apparent on the record as of the original order date; because the ITAT's order followed the law prevailing on that date, a later overruling by the Supreme Court did not create jurisdiction for rectification. The HC sustained that the Tribunal's exercise of jurisdiction under Section 254(2) was impermissible and removed the impugned order.

---

---

The core legal question considered by the Court was whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("ITAT") was justified in invoking its jurisdiction under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("IT Act") to rectify its earlier order based on a subsequent Supreme Court judgment, when no error was apparent on the face of the record at the time the original order was passed.

Specifically, the issues presented and considered were:

• Whether a subsequent Supreme Court decision overruling the legal position applied by the ITAT in its original order can constitute a "mistake apparent from the record" within the meaning of Section 254(2) of the IT Act, thereby justifying rectification of the original order.
• The scope and limits of the ITAT's jurisdiction under Section 254(2) of the IT Act to rectify orders on grounds of mistakes apparent on the face of the record.
• The applicability of precedents concerning the nature of rectification jurisdiction, including the distinction between errors apparent on the record and changes in law or subsequent judicial pronouncements.
• The effect of the Supreme Court's ruling in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. v. CIT on the entitlement to deduction under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act for belated deposits of employees' share of EPF and ESI.
• The procedural propriety of the Revenue's invocation of Section 254(2) to seek rectification of the ITAT's order that had allowed the deduction based on the then-prevailing legal position.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

1. Whether subsequent Supreme Court ruling can be a ground for invoking Section 254(2) of the IT Act

The legal framework governing this issue is Section 254(2) of the IT Act, which empowers the ITAT to rectify any mistake apparent from the record. The jurisdiction under this provision is analogous but more restricted than the rectification powers under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The Court referred extensively to precedents, including a Division Bench decision of the same High Court in Infantry Security and Facilities v. Income Tax Officer, which dealt with the identical issue arising from the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services.

The Court observed that the ITAT's original order dated 22nd June 2022 was passed in accordance with the then-prevailing law, notably the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd., which allowed deduction if the employee's share was deposited before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1). The subsequent Supreme Court ruling in Checkmate Services (rendered on 12th October 2022) overruled this proposition and held that the deduction under Section 36(1)(va) is permissible only if the deposit is made within the statutory time limits prescribed under the respective statutes, not merely before the filing due date under the IT Act.

The Court reasoned that since the Supreme Court decision was rendered after the ITAT's original order, it could not be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record at the time of the original order. The Court emphasized that "a subsequent ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be a ground for invoking the provisions of Section 254(2)." The rectification jurisdiction is confined to correcting mistakes apparent from the record and does not extend to revisiting orders on the basis of changes in law or later judicial pronouncements.

The Court relied on the Infantry Security decision which held that "such decision of the Supreme Court which never existed when the Tribunal passed the original order could never have been applied by the Tribunal, and hence it cannot be said that there was any mistake on the face of the record, so as to confer jurisdiction on the Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 254(2) of the IT Act."

Further, the Court cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Beghar Foundation v. K. S. Puttaswamy, which clarified that a change in law or subsequent decision by a coordinate or larger bench cannot by itself be a ground for review or rectification. This principle was reiterated in Sanjay Kumar Agrawal v. State Tax Officer, reinforcing the restricted scope of rectification jurisdiction.

The Court also referred to the ITAT's decision in ANI Integrated Services Ltd., where similar applications by Revenue were rejected on the same ground, reinforcing the settled position that Section 254(2) does not permit reopening of orders based on subsequent changes in law.

2. Scope and nature of jurisdiction under Section 254(2) of the IT Act

The Court analyzed the nature of the rectification jurisdiction under Section 254(2), noting that it is akin to but more restricted than the rectification powers under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the CPC. The jurisdiction is limited to correcting "mistakes apparent on the face of the record" and does not extend to reconsidering the correctness of the order or the law applied therein.

The Court highlighted that the ITAT cannot invoke Section 254(2) to revisit or modify its order on the basis of a change in law or a subsequent judicial pronouncement. The rectification jurisdiction is not a substitute for an appeal or review and cannot be used to alter the legal position adopted in the original order unless there is an obvious and demonstrable error apparent on the record.

The Court relied on the Infantry Security decision which held that the Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 254(2) is "more restricted" than the rectification powers under CPC and cannot be exercised to apply a new legal position that did not exist at the time the original order was passed.

3. Application of the Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services to the facts

The Supreme Court in Checkmate Services held that the deduction under Section 36(1)(va) for the employee's share of EPF and ESI is allowable only if the deposit is made within the time limits prescribed under the respective statutes, not merely before the due date of filing the income tax return. This ruling overruled the earlier position adopted by the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Nipso Polyfabriks, which had allowed deduction if deposited before the filing due date under Section 139(1).

In the present case, the ITAT's original order had allowed the deduction based on the Nipso Polyfabriks ruling, as the employee's share was deposited before the due date of filing returns. The Revenue sought rectification based on the subsequent Checkmate Services ruling, which was not binding at the time of the original order.

The Court found that the ITAT erred in invoking Section 254(2) to rectify its order on the basis of the Checkmate Services decision, as this was a change in law and not a mistake apparent from the record. The Court held that the original order was legally sound as per the law prevailing at the time and could not be revisited through a rectification application.

4. Treatment of competing arguments

The Revenue argued that the ITAT was entitled to rectify its order under Section 254(2) in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Checkmate Services, which clarified the correct legal position. The Revenue contended that the rectification was necessary to align the order with the binding Supreme Court precedent and to sustain the Assessing Officer's disallowance.

The Petitioner contended that Section 254(2) does not permit rectification based on subsequent changes in law or judicial pronouncements and that the ITAT's original order was passed in accordance with the then-prevailing legal position. The Petitioner relied on the settled legal principles restricting the scope of rectification jurisdiction and the precedents of Infantry Security, Beghar Foundation, and ANI Integrated Services to support this position.

The Court accepted the Petitioner's arguments, emphasizing the restricted scope of Section 254(2) and the principle that a subsequent ruling cannot retrospectively create an error apparent on the record. The Court rejected the Revenue's contention that the ITAT could rectify its order based on the subsequent Supreme Court ruling.

5. Conclusions

The Court concluded that the ITAT lacked jurisdiction under Section 254(2) to rectify its original order dated 22nd June 2022 on the ground of the subsequent Supreme Court ruling in Checkmate Services. The rectification order dated 4th August 2023 and the order giving effect thereto dated 26th October 2023 were quashed and set aside. The original ITAT order allowing the deduction under Section 36(1)(va) was restored.

The Court clarified that the Revenue is not precluded from challenging the original ITAT order under Section 260A of the IT Act, if otherwise permissible in law.

Significant Holdings

"A subsequent ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be a ground for invoking the provisions of Section 254(2). Section 254(2) can be invoked with a view to rectify any mistake apparent from the record and not otherwise."

"Such decision of the Supreme Court which never existed when the Tribunal passed the original order could never have been applied by the Tribunal, and hence it cannot be said that there was any mistake on the face of the record, so as to confer jurisdiction on the Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 254(2) of the IT Act."

"The jurisdiction as conferred under sub-Section(2) of Section 254 is akin to the jurisdiction conferred on the Civil Court under the provisions of Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the CPC inter alia to correct mistakes apparent on the face of the record. However, on a comparative reading of sub-Section (2) of Section 254 of the IT Act, and Rule 1 of Order XLVII of CPC, it appears that such jurisdiction conferred on the Tribunal is more restricted."

"The principles of law are squarely applicable that change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of coordinate or larger bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review or rectification."

"The Revenue is not precluded from challenging the original order passed by the ITAT dated 22nd June, 2022 under Section 260A of the IT Act, if they are otherwise entitled to in law."

---