TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1213
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in a narrow compass. The Appellant as an Income Tax Assessee and being aggrieved by an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) preferred statutory Appeals before the Tribunal in terms of Section 253(1)(a) of the Act. The said Appeals were filed along with an Application seeking condonation of delay of 867 days in filing the said Appeals on the ground that the order of the CIT(Appeal) was received by his driver and was allegedly kept in the garage and not informed to him. Apparently, the Tribunal did not find the ground to be sufficient and as such dismissed the statutory Appeals of the Appellant on the ground of Limitation vide an order dated 03.07.2024 passed in ITA Nos. 365 & 366 LKW/2018. 4. The Appellant against the order dated 03.07.2024 preferred the aforesaid Miscellaneous Application Nos. 16 & 17/LKW/2024 under Section 254(2) of the Act seeking review of the said order mainly on the ground that the affidavit filed by the driver admitting his fault was not considered by the Tribunal. 5. The Tribunal while considering the said review Applications of the Appellant arrived at a finding that there is no mistake apparent on face of the record and as such di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ications. 07. In the final result, both the Miscellaneous Applications filed by the assessee stand dismissed." 6. In the aforesaid background, the present Appeals have been filed by the Appellant proposing the following substantial question of law: "1. Whether the Tribunal erred in law in dismissing the Miscellaneous Applications under Section 254(2) without considering that non-exercise of jurisdiction vested under Section 131 read with Section 255(6) amounts to a mistake apparent on record? 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application without summoning or cross-examining the deponent, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mehta Parikh & Co.? 3. Whether the Tribunal failed to appreciate that procedural delay caused by counsel or employee negligence constitutes "sufficient cause" in light of settled principles governing condonation of delay? 4. Whether dismissal of appeal on technical grounds of limitation, without adjudication on merits, defeats the principles of natural justice? 5. Whether the Tribunal misdirected itself in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent Appeals, this Court with the consent of the parties has heard their arguments for disposal of the present Appeals at the admission stage itself. 10. Admittedly, no Appeal has been filed by the Appellant against order dated 03.07.2024 passed by the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 365 & 366/LKW/2018 and merely the order on review dated 30.10.2025 has been sought to be challenged in the present Appeals. Thus, the scope of this Court in the present Appeals is circumscribed and is only to the extent of examining the impugned order dated 30.10.2025 passed by the Tribunal dismissing the review Applications of the Appellant field under section 254(2) of the Act. 11. For the sake of convenience, section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act is being quoted herein below: "254. (2) Orders of Appellate Tribunal.- (1) [*******] (2) The Appellate Tribunal may, at any time within [six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed], with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1), and shall make such amendment if the mistake is brought to its notice by the assessee or the Assessing Officer: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case, exceed three hundred and sixty-five days, the order of stay shall stand vacated after the expiry of such period or periods, even if the delay in disposing of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee.]] (2-B) The cost of any appeal to the Appellate Tribunal shall be at the discretion of that Tribunal.]" 12. A facial look at Section 254(2) of the Act, which deals with the power of rectification by the Tribunal, makes it amply clear that the word mistake is accompanied by apparent. The word mistake is qualified by the word apparent and arguendo, it is not all mistakes, which have crept in any order of the Tribunal that can be rectified in terms of section 254(2) of the Act, until and unless the mistake is apparent. According to this Court, in order to attract the application under Section 254(2), a mistake must exist and the same must be apparent from the record. 13. In ordinary parlance 'Mistake' means 'to be wrong about something' or to take or understand wrongly or inaccurately. According to Black's Law Dictionary, a mistake is defined as "An error, misconception, or misunderstanding; an erroneous belief". It represents a belief not in accord ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sought to be rectified. The mistake to be rectified must be one apparent from the record. A decision on the debatable point of law or undisputed question of fact is not a mistake apparent from the record. The plain meaning of the word 'apparent' is that it must be something which appears to be so ex facie and it is incapable of argument or debate. It therefore, follows that a decision on a debatable point of law or fact or failure to apply the law or a judgment to a set of facts cannot be corrected by way of rectification. 16. According to this Court, the scope and ambit of the application of Section 254(2) is limited and narrow. It is restricted to rectification of mistakes apparent from the record. Only glaring and any mistake apparent on the face of the record and/or order alone, can be rectified and hence anything debatable cannot be a subject matter of rectification. 17. As far as the facts of the present Appeals are concerned, this Court finds that the hinge of argument of the learned counsel for the Appellant is premised on the fact that the Tribunal had failed to exercise its power under section 131 r/w Section 255(6) of the Act, which relates to the investiga....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r, which is beyond the scope of this section." 19. As a sequel to above, this Court does not find any substance in the present Appeals, as the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the review applications of the appellant for want of any mistake apparent on the record. 20. Further, there is another aspect of the matter, inasmuch as the present Appeals have been filed under Section 260A of the Act. It is settled proposition of law that the Tribunal is the final authority to decide on the issue of facts. The High Court can only interfere in the order of Tribunal if there exists a substantial question of law. 21. Recently, this Bench in the case of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax I, Lucknow Vs. Medharaj Techno Concept Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Person, reported as (Neutral Citation No.-2026:AHC-LKO:24918-DB) while examining the scope of appeal Under Section 260A of the Act, undertook an arduous finding to trace the law prevailing for determining the substantial question of law. This Court after noting various judgments on the said aspect, including Arulvelu and Another Vs. State and Another reported in (2009) 10 SCC 206; S.R. Tewari Vs. Union of India reported in (2013) 6 SCC 6....