2025 (9) TMI 1319 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowance of belated employee PF/ESI deposits upheld; s.254(2) cannot correct orders based on later law changes

Rajkumar Laxminarayan Kanojiya Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CPC, Bengaluru & Others.

AO's disallowance of deduction for belated employee provident fund/ESI deposits was upheld; HC held ITAT erred in invoking s.254(2) to rectify its earlier ... Validity of order passed by ITAT invoking powers u/s 254(2) - rectification of mistake - effect of subsequent ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court - AO made a disallowance in the intimation u/s 143(1) on the ground that the Assessee had deposited the employee’s share of provident fund, ESI etc., belatedly, and hence, they were not allowed to claim a deduction of this amount u/s 36 (1) (va) - HELD THAT:- We agree with Petitioner that 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. Admittedly, on the date when the original order was passed by the ITAT on 2nd May 2022, it followed the law as it stood then. That was overruled subsequently by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Checkmates Services .[2022 (10) TMI 617 - SUPREME COURT (LB)] - Hence, we are of the view, that on the date when the Tribunal passed its original order it could not be said that there was any error or mistake apparent on the record, giving jurisdiction to the Tribunal to invoke Section 254(2) of the IT Act. We take is squarely covered in the case of Infantry Security and Facilities [2024 (12) TMI 1488 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] The Division Bench in Infantry Securities and Facilities (supra) was concerned with the exact same decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Checkmates Services (supra). The Division Bench, after examining the law on the subject, came to the conclusion that the Tribunal was in patent error in exercising jurisdiction under Section 254(2), and passing the impugned order. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vaibhav Maruti Dombale [2025 (9) TMI 1037 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has also quashed the order passed u/s 254(2) in exactly the same factual background. In light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the this Petition deserves to be allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) may invoke Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act to rectify its earlier order on the basis of a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court that was rendered after the Tribunal's original order. 2. Whether a change in law by a later judicial decision (a subsequent authoritative ruling) constitutes a 'mistake apparent from the record' within the meaning of Section 254(2) so as to permit exercise of the Tribunal's rectification jurisdiction. 3. The scope and limits of Section 254(2) vis-à-vis the power to correct errors apparent on the face of the record and its relationship with review-type relief (including analogy to Order XLVII, Rule 1 CPC and principles governing review/rectification). 4. Ancillary: Whether allowing rectification under Section 254(2) on the basis of subsequent law precludes the Revenue from pursuing other statutory remedies (e.g., appeal under Section 260A) when available. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Power of the ITAT under Section 254(2) to rectify an earlier order based on a subsequent Supreme Court decision Legal framework: Section 254(2) confers on the ITAT jurisdiction to rectify mistakes apparent from the record in its orders; this power is akin to but more restricted than the Civil Court's power under Order XLVII, Rule 1 CPC. The rectification jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors apparent on face of record and is not a vehicle to reopen final decisions because of subsequent legal developments. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal's original order followed the law as it stood at the time of the decision. Subsequent Supreme Court authority altered that position. Authorities discussed in the judgment establish that change in law or a subsequent coordinate/larger bench decision cannot, by itself, be a ground for review or rectification of a prior judgment. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court reasons that Section 254(2) is confined to mistakes evident from the record as it stood when the order was passed. A subsequent ruling changing the legal position cannot retrospectively render the earlier application of then-prevailing law a mistake apparent on the record. The Tribunal's reliance on pre-existing precedent when deciding the appeal means there was no error apparent on the face of the record at the time of the original order; hence Section 254(2) could not be validly invoked to overturn that order merely because a later Supreme Court decision held otherwise. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Rectification under Section 254(2) does not extend to correcting decisions that were correct under the law existing at the time of decision merely because the law changed later. Obiter - Observations comparing the rectification power to Order XLVII, Rule 1 CPC and discussion of comparative restrictiveness amplify the ratio but are ancillary. Conclusions: The ITAT erred in invoking Section 254(2) to set aside its earlier order on the sole ground that a subsequent Supreme Court decision changed the applicable law. The rectification was impermissible and therefore liable to be quashed. Issue 2 - Whether change in law by later judicial decision constitutes a 'mistake apparent from the record' Legal framework: 'Mistake apparent from the record' is a narrow concept confined to palpable, self-evident errors on the face of the order (e.g., clerical slips, arithmetical errors, omissions), not to substantive legal errors arising from adherence to binding precedent at the time. Precedent treatment: Decisions relied upon in the judgment establish that change in law or subsequent judicial pronouncements (including those of coordinate or larger benches) do not automatically furnish grounds for review or rectification; the power is not intended as a mechanism to revisit final orders due to subsequent developments. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court applies the principle that an order correct under the law prevailing at the time cannot be treated as suffering from an apparent mistake simply because the law later changed. The Tribunal's decision to follow then-authoritative precedent was not an oversight or facial mistake; it was a considered application of existing law, therefore outside the ambit of Section 254(2). Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Change in law post-dating an order does not equal a mistake apparent on the face of the record for purposes of rectification. Obiter - Comparative references to review jurisprudence and cases rejecting review on grounds of change in law elucidate the reasoning. Conclusions: A subsequent authoritative change in legal position is not a permissible basis for rectification under Section 254(2); such applications are to be rejected where the original order conformed to the law as it existed when rendered. Issue 3 - Scope and limits of Section 254(2) vis-à-vis review/rectification and analogy to civil procedure Legal framework: Section 254(2)'s jurisdiction resembles the rectification power under Order XLVII, Rule 1 CPC but is more restricted. Principles from review jurisprudence (including that change in law is not, by itself, a ground for review) are instructive in delimiting Section 254(2)'s ambit. Precedent treatment: The Court refers to authoritative authorities rejecting the proposition that subsequent decisions justify review/rectification. Decisions of other benches and tribunal orders addressing identical factual matrices reinforce the narrow scope of Section 254(2). Interpretation and reasoning: The Court emphasizes that Section 254(2) cannot be used as a substitute for appeals or statutory remedies available to the Revenue. The power is confined to correcting patent mistakes and does not permit reopening of issues decided correctly under contemporaneous law. Comparative reading demonstrates that the Tribunal's rectification jurisdiction is 'more restricted' than the civil court's power and must be exercised sparingly. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Section 254(2) is limited to rectifying patent errors apparent on the face of the record and does not permit revisiting orders due to subsequent legal changes. Obiter - The analogy to Order XLVII, Rule 1 CPC and extended discussion of review jurisprudence provide supporting rationale but are confirmatory. Conclusions: The Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in allowing rectification; Section 254(2) cannot be invoked to apply a subsequently-declared change in law to prior final orders. The correct course, if available, is invocation of appellate remedies authorized by statute. Issue 4 - Ancillary procedural consequence: Preservation of alternative remedies Legal framework: Statutory appellate remedies remain available where law permits; a ruling quashing an improper rectification does not preclude the Revenue from pursuing appeals expressly provided for under the statute. Precedent treatment: The judgment clarifies that quashing the rectification does not bar the Revenue from availing itself of any proper appellate remedy (for example, statutory appeals) if otherwise entitled. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court distinguishes between an improper exercise of rectification jurisdiction (which must be set aside) and legitimate pursuit of statutory appeals; the latter remain unaffected by the order quashing the rectification application. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Setting aside an invalid rectification does not curtail other statutory remedies; it preserves the parties' right to appeal where law permits. Obiter - The Court's clarificatory note on this point is procedural and consequential. Conclusions: The decision quashing the rectification leaves open lawful appellate routes for the Revenue; the restraint is only on misuse of Section 254(2) to effect change based on subsequent jurisprudence.