https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457871 ITAT Bangalore rejected assessee's rectification application under Section 254 regarding delayed PF ESI payments. The Tribunal held no apparent error existed in its original order warranting rectification. The assessee's contention that Tribunal should have followed recent decisions remitting matters to AO was rejected as factually distinguishable. ITAT clarified that Section 254(2) allows only rectification of apparent mistakes from record, not review of orders. The auditor had correctly identified delayed PF ESI payments in Form 3CD, contrary to SC precedent. ITAT emphasized that if assessee considers order erroneous, remedy lies in appeal to HC, not miscellaneous application. Application partly allowed. en-us Tue, 30 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 29 Sep 2024 16:20:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457871 ITAT Bangalore rejected assessee's rectification application under Section 254 regarding delayed PF ESI payments. The Tribunal held no apparent error existed in its original order warranting rectification. The assessee's contention that Tribunal should have followed recent decisions remitting matters to AO was rejected as factually distinguishable. ITAT clarified that Section 254(2) allows only rectification of apparent mistakes from record, not review of orders. The auditor had correctly identified delayed PF ESI payments in Form 3CD, contrary to SC precedent. ITAT emphasized that if assessee considers order erroneous, remedy lies in appeal to HC, not miscellaneous application. Application partly allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 30 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457871