https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783574 The dominant issue was whether the ITAT could invoke s.254(2) to rectify its earlier order by treating a subsequent SC ruling on delayed employees' PF/ESIC contributions as a "mistake apparent from the record." The HC held that s.254(2) is confined to errors apparent on the record as it existed when the original order was passed; a later change in law by a subsequent SC decision cannot retrospectively create such a mistake. Since the ITAT's original order followed the law prevailing on its date, it suffered from no apparent error, and the ITAT lacked jurisdiction to rectify on that basis. The rectification order was quashed and the petition allowed. en-us Tue, 09 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Dec 2025 08:01:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783574 The dominant issue was whether the ITAT could invoke s.254(2) to rectify its earlier order by treating a subsequent SC ruling on delayed employees' PF/ESIC contributions as a "mistake apparent from the record." The HC held that s.254(2) is confined to errors apparent on the record as it existed when the original order was passed; a later change in law by a subsequent SC decision cannot retrospectively create such a mistake. Since the ITAT's original order followed the law prevailing on its date, it suffered from no apparent error, and the ITAT lacked jurisdiction to rectify on that basis. The rectification order was quashed and the petition allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 09 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783574