2023 (5) TMI 1470

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....resaid order dated 23.05.2022, the Tribunal held that the Revenue authorities were not justified in making a disallowance on delayed payment of employee's contribution to ESI and PF made by the assessee beyond the due date by invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act, but within the due date for filing return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act. The Tribunal followed the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of Essae Taroka (P.) Ltd. reported in (2014) 266 CTR 246. Subsequently on the same issue, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CHECKMATE SERVICES PVT LTD VS CIT-1 in CIVIL APPEAL 2833/2016 vide its judgment dated 12 October 2022 held that allowablity/treatment of 'delayed' Employee PF Contribution payment to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange case 219 CTR (SC) 90 wherein it is held that non-consideration of the decision of the jurisdictional high court/Supreme Court constitutes mistake apparent from record and is rectifiable within the meaning of section 254(2) of the Act. In Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. CIT 295 ITR 466, the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained the scope of rectification powers u/s. 254(2) of the Act, as follows: "Scope of the Power of Rectification 12. As stated above, in this case we are concerned with the application under section 254(2) of the 1961 Act. As stated above, the expression "rectification of mistake from the record" occurs in section 154. It also finds pla....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....justified in exercising its powers under section 254(2) when it was pointed out to the Tribunal that the judgment of the coordinate bench was placed before the Tribunal when the original order came to be passed but it had committed a mistake in not considering the material which was already on record. The Tribunal has acknowledged its mistake, it has accordingly rectified its order. In our view, the High Court was not justified in interfering with the said order. We are not going by the doctrine or concept of inherent power. We are simply proceeding on the basis that if prejudice had resulted to the party, which prejudice is attributable to the Tribunal's mistake, error or omission and which error is a manifest error then the Tribunal w....