TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1114
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....king powers under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the "I. T. Act"). 3. The short ground on which the order dated 28th April 2023 is assailed is that there was no error apparent on the face of the record for the Tribunal to invoke its jurisdiction under Section 254(2) of the I. T. Act. 4. Before we examine this aspect, it would be appropriate to set out some brief facts of the matter. In the present case, initially, the Assessing Officer made a disallowance of Rs. 2,25,94,571/- in the intimation under Section 143(1) of the I. T. Act 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 under Section 36 (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cribed under the respective statutes, and not if it is deposited only prior to the date of filing returns under Section 139 (1) of the I. T. Act [as laid down in the Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd.]. 7. In light of this decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and which was rendered on 12th October 2022, the Revenue moved a Rectification Application before the ITAT by invoking the provisions of Section 254(2) of the I. T. Act. It is in this Rectification Application that the impugned order is passed, wherein the Tribunal has allowed the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue and holding that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is sustained. 8. The only ground on which the Rectification is allowed is on the basis of the j....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cerned 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. The relevant portion of this decision read thus : "14. In our clear opinion, the question would be required to be answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The reasons for which we discuss hereunder. In such context, at the outset, we may observe that the Petitioner had succeeded before the Tribunal on the basis of the position in law as it prevailed on the day the decision was rendered on the Petitioner's appeal on 26th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the provisions of Order XL VII, 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 XL VII of CPC, it appears that such jurisdiction conferred on the Tribunal is more restricted. 17. In Beghar Foundation (supra), the Supreme Court was considering a Review Petition, filed against the final judgment and order dated 26th September 2018, passed on the main proceedings. In rejecting the Review Petition, the Supreme Court observed that no case for review of such judgment was made out, and most importantly on the ground that change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of coordinate or larger bench by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pra) and the scope of its limited jurisdiction under Section 254(2) of the IT Act. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal in ANI Integrated Services Ltd (supra) and which is on the very issue as urged by the petitioner". 11. Further, another Bench of this Court in the case of Prakash D. Koli Vs. Income tax Appellate Tribunal [2025] 176 taxmann.com 451 (Bombay) has followed the decision in the case of Infantry Security and Facilities v. Income Tax Officer (supra). 12. Further, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vaibhav Maruti Dombale Vs. The Assistant Registrar, ITAT Mumbai and others [W.P. No. 1489 of 2025, decided on 12th September 2025], after reviewing the law on this subject, has also quashed t....