TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 50
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Sections 148 and 148A of the Act shall mean, and shall always be deemed to have meant, an Assessing Officer other than the National Faceless Assessment Centre ("NFAC") or any assessment unit referred to in sub-section (3) of Section 144B. to bring it in (b) Amendment to Section 279 of the Income Tax Act, 2025 consonance with the newly inserted Section 147A, thereby clarifying that the "Assessing Officer" for the purposes of Sections 280 and 281 of the Income Tax Act, 2025 shall also mean an officer other than the NFAC or any assessment unit referred to in Section 273(3). 8.1 The above amendments have been brought in with a view to removing the ambiguity that had led to the divergent High Court judgments and to ensuring that the JAO retains full authority to issue notices under Sections 148 and 148A, as was originally intended by Parliament. 9.. It is further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh & Ors. v. Tej Partap Singh [Diary No(s). 2196/2026) and a batch of thousands of connected Civil Appeals (arising out of SLPs against High Court judgments across the country on the JAO/FAO issue), passed an Or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the relied upon judgments (and the batch of other judgments following it) by its Order dated 10 April 2026 (Annexure A), the condition for revival stands fulfilled. The Revenue accordingly invokes the liberty granted by this Hon'ble ITAT and seeks a formal order of revival. 11. Prayer 11.1 In the premises aforesaid, and in light of the Order dated 10 April 2026 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh & Ors. v. Tej Partap Singh [Diary No(s). 2196/2026], the Revenue humbly prays that this Hon'ble ITAT be pleased to pass an order formally reviving the present appeal and pass such further and other orders and directions as this Hon'ble ITAT may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. 11.2 It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble ITAT may be pleased to allow the present application by reviving the order dated 12.12.2025 passed by this Hon'ble ITAT in ITA No. 1432/Hyd/2025 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble ITAT may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 12. In view of the above, this Miscellane....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e same is liable to be rectified in accordance with the amended law. He further, referring to the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT-4, Hyderabad Vs. Vinod Ojha in ITTA No. 92 of 2026 dated 23.06.2026, submitted that the appeal of the Revenue has been dismissed on the ground that the subsequent insertion of Section 147A does not give rise to a substantial question of law and, therefore, the Hon'ble High Court has not considered the effect and scope of Section 147A. He has further submitted that the validity and effect of the newly inserted provisions have not been examined by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT-4, Hyderabad Vs. Vinod Ojha (supra) and, therefore, the ratio of the said judgment cannot be applied in the present case. Thus, the learned Senior A.R. for the Revenue submitted that the impugned order may be recalled for deciding the issue in terms of the amended provisions of the Act vide Finance Act, 2026. 4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Assessee, submitted that there is no merit in the M.A. filed by the Revenue, because the Tribunal has also granted liberty to both the parties for restoration o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elied upon by the learned DR would not help the case of the Revenue in the matter before us because of the reason that the Tribunal has passed the order and given a finding by following various Judgments including the Judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Kanakala Ravinder Reddy (supra) whereby the provisions of the Act were declared and explained as existed at that point of time and therefore, when the amendment itself has been challenged before the Hon'ble High Court then, the subsequent amendment with retrospective effect would not constitute a mistake apparent from record. An identical issue has been considered by this Tribunal in M.A.No.48/Hyd./ 2026 vide Order dated 25.08.2026 in Para nos.5 to 12 as under: "5. We have heard both parties and considered the relevant contents of the M.A. filed by the Revenue against the order of the Tribunal in ITA No.1432/Hyd/2025 dated 12.12.2025. The Revenue filed the M.A. on the basis of the subsequent insertion of Section 147A in the statute, clarifying the status of the A.O. for the purpose of issuing notice under Sections 148 and 148A, and claimed that since the Tribunal has given liberty to both the partie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2026, held that any order passed before insertion of Section 147A cannot be considered a mistake apparent from record for the purpose of Section 254(2) of the Act, because the orders have been passed at the relevant point of time on the basis of the prevailing position of law, as has been held by various High Courts, including the Jurisdictional High Court, in a number of cases, and, therefore, dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. 8. Further, an identical issue arising from the retrospective amendment made to the provisions of Section 148 by the Finance Act, 1996, has been considered by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sudhir S. Mehta, reported in (2004) 265 ITR 548 (Bom)., wherein, in paragraphs 4 and 5, held as under : "Findings 4. In the present case, the short point which arises for consideration is whether miscellaneous application filed by the Department was maintainable under section 254(2) of the IT Act which states that mistake apparent from the record can be rectified by the Tribunal within four years from the date of its order. In this case, the reassessment proceedings were initiated vide notice dated 7th Nov., 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tribunal was delivered prior to the amendment and before the amended law received the Presidential assent. Therefore, the miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue was rightly rejected by the Tribunal, as there was no mistake apparent from the record in the order of the Tribunal. 10. Similarly, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pr. CIT-4, Hyderabad vs. Vinod Ojha (supra) has held in Para nos.3 to 6 as under: "3. The substantial grounds raised for challenge in the present appeal are primarily on the ground that the Tribunal ought to have considered the amendment brought to the Income Tax Act, 1961, under the proviso to Section 147A vide the Finance Act, 2026. At the outset, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order in instant case itself one which was passed in November, 2025, that is much, before the Amendment bill was placed before the Parliament. Further, on the date, when the Tribunal had decided the matter, there were 100s of matters of the jurisdictional High Court governing the issue and laying down the applicable legal position. 4. In view of the same, the finding arrived at by the Tribunal cannot be either he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....passed. In our considered view, while exercising powers under section 254(2) of the Act, the Tribunal is required to examine whether any mistake apparent from the record existed in the order on the date on which such order was passed. A subsequent legislative amendment, though given retrospective effect, cannot by itself render the earlier order of the Tribunal erroneous so as to confer jurisdiction upon the Tribunal to review or recall its concluded decision under section 254(2) of the Act. We have also gone through para no. 14 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of ITO Vs. Infantry Security & Facilities (supra), which is to the following effect: "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 26 July 2022. Subsequent to the said orders passed by the Tribunal, on 12 October 2022, the Supreme Court rendered its....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not confer any power of review upon the Tribunal. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2026 after the passing of the Tribunal's order cannot constitute a mistake apparent from the record within the meaning of section 254(2) of the Act. We accordingly find no merit in the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue." 12. In this view of the matter, and considering the binding precedents of the various case laws discussed hereinabove, we hold that, the subsequent amendment by the Finance Act, 2026 would not render the order of the Tribunal, which was passed on the basis of the existing provisions of Sections 147, 148 and 144B of the Act, as suffering from any mistake apparent from record, which could be rectified under the provisions of Section 254(2) of the Act. Even otherwise, the scope and jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 254(2) is very limited and circumscribed to rectifying the mistake apparent from record and does not extend to reviewing the order passed by the Tribunal on merits on the basis of the existing provisions of law, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs.....