“mistake apparent from record”

Rectification & RevisionSection 154Section 154700 judgments

The decision most relied on for mistake apparent from record is Kourani v. Union OF India (83 Taxmann.com 137), cited in 1,708 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on mistake apparent from record

Kourani v. Union OF India

83 Taxmann.com 137 · 2017 · High Court

1,708

citing judgments

The fee under Section 234E for late filing of TDS/TCS statements cannot be levied retrospectively by processing an intimation under Section 200A for defaults occurring before the amendment allowing such processing.

ACIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd.

305 ITR 227 · 2008 · Supreme Court

470

citing judgments

Non-consideration of a decision by a jurisdictional High Court or the Supreme Court constitutes a mistake apparent from the record. However, non-consideration of a non-jurisdictional High Court decision does not typically amount to such a mistake.

T.S. Balaram ITO v. Volkart Bros.

82 ITR 50 · 1971 · Supreme Court

382

citing judgments

A mistake apparent from the record under Section 154 must be an obvious and patent error, not one that requires a long and elaborate process of reasoning or where two opinions are conceivable. Rectification under Section 154 is not permissible for re-examining issues already considered or requiring detailed re-computation.

CIT v. Hero Cycles (P.) Ltd.

228 ITR 463 · 1997 · Supreme Court

262

citing judgments

A point not examined on facts or in law cannot be treated as a mistake apparent on record for rectification purposes.

DIT v. Jacabs Civil Incorporated/ Mitsubhishi Corporation

330 ITR 578 · 2011 · High Court

115

citing judgments

Interest under Section 234B is generally not leviable on non-residents whose income is subject to tax deduction at source under Section 195, provided the non-resident assessee did not induce short or non-deduction of TDS by the payer.

CIT v. Aruna Luthra

252 ITR 76 · 2001 · High Court

citing judgments

Rectification under Section 154 is permissible based on a subsequent judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court or the Supreme Court. Such a judgment clarifies the law as it always stood, thereby revealing a mistake apparent from the record.

Addl. CIT v. J.K. D'Costa

133 ITR 7 · 1982 · High Court

citing judgments

Debatable issues cannot be rectified under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, as rectification is limited to mistakes apparent from the record.

Mepco Industries Ltd. v. CIT

319 ITR 208 · 2009 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

A mistake rectifiable under Section 154 must be obvious and apparent from the record, not one that requires a long process of reasoning or constitutes a mere change of opinion.

Judgments citing mistake apparent from record

Kallullathil Thazhatheveetil Nasir, Manathavady vs. ITO, Ward-2, Kalpetta

ITA 820/COCH/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Nov 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.V.Swarnalatha, Sr.DR

Section 115Section 115BSection 143Section 147Section 154Section 246ASection 69

read with Circular No: 3/2017 dated 20/11/2007 only and hence have no application to the year under reference. This being a mistake apparent from record, was omitted to be considered by the assessing officer as well as the first appellate authority while passing the orders. 3. The learned first appellate ... this regard and held that the order passed under section 143 (3) read with section 147 is correct and there is no mistake apparent from record as submitted by the appellant, without even looking into the provisions of finance Act 2016, read with CBDT.F. No:370142/20/2016/TPZ and Circular No: 3/2017

M/S G.G Agricultural Industries, Barnala vs. DCIT-CC, Patiala

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 786/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: This Tribunal As & By Way Of Second Appeal Under The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). The Relevant Assessment Year Is Assessment Year 2018-19. The Corresponding Previous Year Is From 01.04.2017 To 31.03.2018. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By An Order Bearing No. Itba/Rec/M/154/2023-24/1057512359(1) Dated 30.10.2023 Under Section 150/250(6) Of The Act In First

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT Sr. DR

Section 150Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 250(6)Section 253Section 36Section 43B

reported in [2005] 93 ITD 77 (DELHI)(TM)has held that in view of subsequent binding decision of High Court, there was a mistake apparent from record in order of Tribunal holding a contrary view. Therefore, order of Tribunal was liable to be rectified under section ... where decision was rendered by Tribunal following High Court decision which was subsequently reversed by Supreme Court, it could be said there was mistake apparent from record in order of Tribunal and Tribunal was bound to rectify it". iv) "The ITAT Jodhpur Bench in the case of Bank of Rajasthan

Prayas Tracon Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-II, Faridabad

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3627/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareeka.Yr. : 2008-09 Prayas Tracon Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii, (Now Known As With M/S Srs Faridabad Banquets & Resorts Ltd., D-28, South Extension, Part-I New Delhi – 110 049 (Pan: Aaccp8383L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Surender pal, CIT(DR)

Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 154

body of the said assessment order the issue has thoroughly been discussed, thereby the proposed addition was nothing but a mistake apparent from records which has been rectified. On the issue of the application u/s. 154 of the Act filed by the assessee, it was observed while going through ... contents of the application and the assessment records of the assessee that it is mistake apparent from records, can be rectified. 3. Upon assessee’s appeal, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the AO’s order by observing as under:- “I have gone through the facts of the case and grounds

Imperial Housing, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1792/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 154(1)Section 35D

that while passing the order u/s 143(3) of the IT. Act, 1961, for the AY 2015-16 on 27/12/2017, there was a mistake apparent from record. The assessee had claimed Rs.3,44,38,300/- towards preliminary expenses written off as against the sales revenue of Rs.1 ... erred in holding that the issue subjected to rectification u/s 154 was debatable and could not legally be treated as a mistake apparent from record, without appreciating the fact that in the assessment order the preliminary expenses of Rs.3,44,38,300/- declared by the assessee

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Pune vs. Imperial Housing, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1120/PUN/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 154(1)Section 35D

Beawar Bal Vikas Samitee, Beawar vs. Addl JCIT of Income Tax Appeals, Mysore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 820/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Vyash (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Anita Rinesh (JCIT)

Section 10Section 10(23)(vi)Section 143(1)Section 154

intimation order. Further, the appellant has also submitted rectification application before jurisdictional assessing officer which was also rejected stating no mistake apparent from record is there in the order which is prima facie requirement to proceeding to rectification order u/s. 154 of the Act by discussing the issues raised ... from facts of the present case. In the case relied upon by the appellant, the Hon'ble tribunal has decided the matter as mistake apparent from record since error creeps in an order solely due to uploading of return or software, which was error due to software. Wherein the present

Ram Avadhanulu Jonnavithula, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1645/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Navneeth N. Kini, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

credit under section 90 of the IT Act, 1961. Under bona fide belief that this demand is a matter of rectification of mistake apparent from record under section 154 of the IT Act, 1961, I made the following attempts at rectification: 1. Online I have Ned rectification return ... delay and primarily spent on resolving the issue with the assessing officer and CPC. I was under bonafide belief that this is a mistake apparent from record (as my claim in the return was not acknowledged) and was hopeful of a positive resolution, not requiring further appeal. Hence pursued

Yashvardhan Jatia Trust, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer CPC, Banglore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2541/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT/DR

Section 10(35)Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 154Section 250

various rectification applications and reminders filed before him by dismissing the same in a cryptic manner and holding that there was no mistake apparent on record. 1.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) ought to have directed the AO, CPC to exclude ... rectification order u/s 154 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) has rejected the appeal of the assessee holding that there was no mistake apparent from record found in the case of assessee. During the course of appellate proceedings before the us, the ld. Counsel submitted that assessee has filed

Investors Grievances Forum, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centrlalised Processing Centre, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1903/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyalinvestors Grievances Forum, 9-, Neelam Nagar, Mulund, Mumbai. Maharashtra – 400 081 Pan No.: Aaati0293F ..... Appellant Vs. Dcit, Cpc Jurisdiction Of Ao Exem., Ward 1(3) Itd, Nfac Delhi ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal Bhuta, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain, Ld. DR

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 139Section 139(4)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250

gross receipts and the expenses should be added and not the entire gross receipts, is a matter which cannot be considered a mistake apparent from record as per the judicial decisions cited above since it is an issue where more than one opinion is possible and hence falls beyond ... considering the response of the assessee made u/s. 139(9) of the Act. By not doing so, the CPC Bengaluru has committed a mistake apparent from record which is curable by filing an application u/s. 154 of the Act. In view of the above discussion, we found the order

Digamber Jain Swadhyay Mandir Trust, Bhavnagar vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1 (Exemp.), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 476/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ld. Nfac. Assessee Was Of The Wrong Impression, Separate Appeal Is Not Required To Be Filed Against The Appellate Order Passed Against Rectification Order, But The Same Was Clarified By The Chartered Accountant. It Is Thereafter The Assessee Filed The Above Appeal With A Delay Of 82 Days Which Is Neither Wilful Nor Wanton & Therefore Requested To Condone The Delay.

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 154Section 154(6)Section 292B

erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the rectification order u/s. 154 of the Act in absence of any mistake apparent from record. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that invocation of S.115BBE after the assessment order is framed is beyond the scope

Saraswati Agro Chemicals (India) Pvt. Ltd, Mohali vs. DCIT, Circle-6(1), Mohali

In the result, the transfer pricing adjustment so made by the AO and confirmed by the ld CIT(A) amounting to Rs 89,22,420/- is hereby set-aside and the ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 165/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Gupta, C.A and Shri Akshun Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

reveals that investment in equity shares & dividend paid being reported as an expense covered u/s 40A(2)(b) in Form 3CEB is a mistake apparent from records. The Ld. A.O as well as TPO & ld CIT(A) should not get influenced by this mistake. An item of Balance Sheet when

DCIT-CC-8(2), Mumbai vs. Shrivallabh Pittie Industries Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2672/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dcit-Cc-8(2) Shrivallabh Pittie Industries Limited 658, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, 97 Maker Tower F, Cuffe Parade, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 005 Pan/Gir No. Aakca 8820 H (Assessee) : (Respondent) Revenue By : Ms. Priyanka Borar Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar AmbasthaFor Respondent: Ms. Priyanka Borar

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 153CSection 245D(4)Section 250Section 69C

already made in the order u/s. 153A of the Act, and the addition made u/s. 153C of the Act was merely rectification of mistake apparent from record. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a public limited company engaged in manufacturing of yarn and had filed ... deleting the addition of Rs.1,37,09,672/- made u/s. 69C of the Act and in directing the ld. A.O. to rectify the mistake apparent from record in the assessment order passed u/s. 153A r.w.s. 144 of the Act. We, therefore, dismiss the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue

Sharwan Kumar Sethi, New Delhi vs. PCIT-17, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4585/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shripradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

submitted that the question as to whether holding of asset was for 36 months or less than 36 months cannot be mistake apparent from record and the invocation of provision of Section 154 of the Act by the A.O. is erroneous. Further submitted that the Ld. PCIT was right

Gallantt Foundation (Formerly Known As Govind Foundation), Gorakhpur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption), Lucknow

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 297/LKW/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Sept 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. S.H. Usmani, CIT DR

Section 12ASection 80(5)Section 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(i)

aforesaid orders were rectifiable under section 154 of the Act and therefore, the assessee filed rectification applications on 8.08.2023 for rectification of mistake apparent from record. However, because there was delay in disposal of the rectification application, the assessee trust approached the senior counsel who advised that an appeal should

Gallantt Foundation( Formerly Known As Govind Foundation), Gorakhpur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 296/LKW/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Sept 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. S.H. Usmani, CIT DR

Section 12ASection 80(5)Section 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(i)

Idfc Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Co. Circle - II (3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 677/CHNY/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.877/Chny/2018 & 677/Chny/2020 िनधा&रण वष& /Assessment Years: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Farookh V. Irani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vi)Section 36(1)(vii)

rectification application as the mistake pointed out in order of Ld. CIT(A) in ITA No.80/CIT(A)-6/2013-14 dated 28.12.2017 is not mistake apparent from record. 26. The assessee in the ground of appeal has taken all the grounds which has been taken against the Ld. CIT(A) order

DCIT Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Idfc Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 878/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.877/Chny/2018 & 677/Chny/2020 िनधा&रण वष& /Assessment Years: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Farookh V. Irani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vi)Section 36(1)(vii)

Idfc Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Company Circle II(3), Chennai

ITA 877/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.877/Chny/2018 & 677/Chny/2020 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11 Idfc Limited, (Erstwhile Known As Infrastructure Vs. Income Tax, Development Finance Company Circle-Ii(3), Limited), Krm Tower, 8Th Floor, No.1, Harrington Road, Chetpet, Chennai – 600 031. Pan: Aaaci 2663N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) The Dy. Commissioner Of Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.878/Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-2(2), Chennai Idfc Limited, (Erstwhile Known As Infrastructure Development Finance Company Vs. Limited), Krm Tower, 8Th Floor, No.1, Harrington Road, Chetpet, Chennai – 600 031. Pan: Aaaci 2663N अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : Shri Farookh V. Irani, Advocate : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit : 23.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2024

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vi)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'डी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'D' BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक

M/S Standard Corporation India Ltd., Barnala vs. DCIT-CC, Patiala

ITA 785/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application Rejected)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 154Section 253

late deposit of employee’s share of ESI/PF/LWF beyond due date as per the Act is not allowed and if allowed same is mistake apparent on record in view of decision of Supreme Court in Checkmate case (supra). Therefore Ld. CIT(A) by impugned order disallowed Employee’s share ... beyond due date and which was allowed as expenditure in earlier appellate order of CIT(A) dt. 14/08/2020. The said was treated as mistake apparent from record and was rectified accordingly finally the amount of Rs. 28,22,610/- was disallowed in terms of Section

Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd., Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1), Baroda

ITA 2842/AHD/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Sept 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos. 2841 & 2842/Ahd/2015 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2002-03 & 204-05 Gujarat State Electricity The Dcit बनाम/ Corporation Ltd. Circle-1(1) V/S. Sardar Patel Vidhyut Bhavan Baroda Race Course Circle Alkapuri, Baroda – 390 007 (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (&' यथ$/ Respondent) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaacg 6864 F

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prithviraj Meena, CIT-DR &

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2Section 254

Maharashtra State Electricity Board, 77 TTJ 33. 1.2 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has held that there has been a mistake apparent from record in the above two judgements whereby the ITA Nos2841&2842/Ahd/2015; AYs 2002-03 & 2004-05 Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd. Vs. DCIT High Courts ... Maharashtra State Electricity Board, 77 TTJ 33. 1.2 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has held that there has been a mistake apparent from record in the above two judgements whereby the High Courts held that there was no express exclusion of the companies engaged in the generation