“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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle- Satna vs. Shri Jammu Beg

In the result, the levy of penalty is cancelled and the appeal of the appellant is allowed

ITA 196/JAB/2016[2012-13]Status: FixedITAT Jabalpur20 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit, Vs. Shri Jammu Beg, Satna, M/S Mirza Transport, Madhya Pradesh. Main Road, Waidhan, Singrauli. Madhya Pradesh.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shravan Kumar Gotru, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271D

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

Mondelez India Foods P.Ltd (Formerly Known As Cadbury India Limited), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 5(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7104/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14A

ground no. 11 to 13 as well. The Tribunal has erroneously relied on the order for A.Y. 2008-09, this being a mistake apparent from record may be rectified and the findings given in Para 14 to 16 may be adopted for Ground No. 11 to 13 also

First International Business Ltd., Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 46/ASR/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar20 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.46/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 154oSection 194CSection 250Section 40

That having regard to the facts and the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that there was no mistake apparent on record and therefore, rectification Order passed by Ld. AO u/s 154 of Income Tax Act, 1961 is unsustainable in law. 2. That ... first Ground of appeal the appellant contended that the order passed u/s 154 is unsustainable in law because there was no mistake apparent from record. In the written submissions made it is argued that the order u/s 154 has been passed by ignoring facts on record and also

Fresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 9(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1001/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 234Section 234CSection 250

adding back provision for mark-to-market losses to the book profit under section 115J8, not appreciating that the same was not 'mistake apparent from record' for exercise of powers of rectification under section 154 of the Act. 4. Without prejudice, that on the facts and circumstances of the case

Mondelez India Foods P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 5(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1518/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 234ASection 234C

Mondelez India Foods P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 5(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1240/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 234ASection 234C

Dipen Kumarpal Parekh, Mumbai vs. NFAC- DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1703/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. P.D. Chougule, DR

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(via)

decision of the jurisdictional Court renders it as a subsequent decision of the jurisdictional Court render subsequent decision of the jurisdictional Court render mistake apparent on record u/s mistake apparent on record u/s 254(2) of the Act and could be 254(2) of the Act and could be corrected ... Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Dipen Kumarpal Parekh 5 M.A No. 338/Mum/2023 and services p ltd (supra), there is mistake apparent from record, and services p ltd (supra), there is mistake apparent from record, and services p ltd (supra), there is mistake apparent from record, and hence

Shankar Zethabhai Patel, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Central, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 124/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.124/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Shankar Zethabhai Patel, Vs. The Pcit(Central), 505, Sraynik Park Appartment, Rander Surat. Road, Surat – 395009. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Cfepp7235M Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) 15/06/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2023

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

lacs is worked out only on the basis of Rs. 2 lacs and not Rs. 20 lacs and so it is mistake apparent from record. The cheques were not cleared as assessee was not able to make the payment owing to the liquidity crunch. Even the sellers have filed

Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2525/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Section 14ASection 254(2)Section 438Section 43B

contention of original ELLATE ground No.3 and not considering the order of this Tribunal in assessee's own case for earlier year constitute mistake apparent from record within the meaning of section 254(2) of the Act. Hence, the order passed in this regard requires to be recalled. However

Maya Krishnakumar Agrawal, Margao vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, `Bengaluru

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

ITA 30/PAN/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji22 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) Maya Krishnakumaragrawal, Vs Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru. 1St Floor, Anand Bhawan, Old Station Road, Margao, Goa. Pan: Acwpa 7029 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kulkarni, Ar Revenue By : Shri N. Shrikanth, Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 22/08/2023 O R D E R Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax [Appeals]-2, Panaji (For Short, „Cit(A)‟), Dated 13.09.2021 For A.Y.2019-20 As Per The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A)-2, Panaji, Goa (Hereinafter Referred To As Cit(A)) Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case. 2. The Cit(A) Legally Erred M Holding That The Appellant'S Rectification Application Would Not Fall Within The Scope Of Section 154 Of The Act. Since The Adjustment Made U/S 143 (1) (A) Of The Act Resulting Into An Addition Of Rs. 117,23,809/- Under The Head "Income From Business Or Profession" Was Mainly On Account Of Feeding Errors Crept While Filling Schedule Bp In The Return Of Income, Cit(A) Ought To Have Directed The Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru (Ao) To Entertain The Application Made By The Appellant U/S 154 Of The Act To Correct The Feeding Errors Crept While Filling Schedule Bp Of The Income Tax Return Being Mistakes Apparent From The Record On The Basis Of Material Available On Record. Maya Krishnakumar Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kulkarni, ARFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth, DR

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 154

responded to the discrepancies/compliance notices issued by the AO. The ld. CIT(A), therefore, held that purpose of rectification u/sec. 154, mistake apparent from record, only be rectified and in the case of the assessee, there is no mistake apparent from record prima-facie and rather, the rectification petition

Saroj Gopal Educational Society, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption (Ward-2), Raipur

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our observations above

ITA 19/RPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.19/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Saroj Gopal Educational Society, 137, New Civic Centre, Bhilai Durg (C.G.)-490 006 Pan: Aadas6074L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer (Exemption) Ward-2, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 154

Officer/CPC, Bengaluru u/s.143 of the Act, therein, assessing the gross receipt of the assessee as its income does not suffer from any mistake apparent from record u/s.154 of the Act. In our view, where the assessee’s claim for exemption u/s.11 & 12 of the Act is declined, it is incumbent

Marble Kingdom India Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur vs. ITO, Ward-TDS, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 67/JODH/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2013-14 Marble Kingdom India Private Income Tax Officer, 365, Lodha Complex, Shashtri Vs Ward-Tds, Circle, Udaipur Udaipur Pan: Jdhm06807D Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. Prerana Choudhary-Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.08.2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi) Under Section 250 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y. 2013-14 Emanating From Order Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 31.12.2019 Passed By Income Tax Officer (Tds), Udaipur. 2. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Under Section 154 Of The Act Against The Order Under Section 200A. Assessee Requested The Ito To Rectify The Levy Of Fee Charged Under Section 234E Of The Act. The Ld. Ito Rejected The Application On The Ground That It Is Not A Mistake Apparent From Record As It Is A Debatable Issue. The Relevant Paragraph Of The Order Is Reproduced Here As Under:- Marble Kingdom India Pvt. Ltd. “3. On-Going Through The Record It Is Noticed That It Is Not A Mistake Apparent On Record & Issue Is Debatable & Also Not Covered U/S 154 Of The Act. Thus The Contention Of The Deductor/Assessee Is Not Tenable Because The Hon'Ble Jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Has Dismissed The Appeals In The Case Of M/S Dundlod Shikdhan Sansthan & Anr. V/S Union Of India & Ors. In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8672/2014 Dated 28.07.2015 On This Issue. Hence Considering The Facts Of The Case & Decision Of Jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court The Application Filed By The Assessee U/S 154 Is Rejected Accordingly.”

Section 154Section 200ASection 23Section 234ESection 250

charged under section 234E of the Act. The ld. ITO rejected the application on the ground that it is not a mistake apparent from record as it is a debatable issue. The relevant paragraph of the order is reproduced here as under:- Marble Kingdom India Pvt. Ltd. “3. On-going ... through the record it is noticed that it is not a mistake apparent on record and issue is debatable and also not covered u/s 154 of the Act. Thus the contention of the deductor/assessee is not tenable because the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Rajasthan High court Jaipur has dismissed the appeals

Om Prakash Bishu, Kuchaman City vs. DCIT, Jodhpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 107/JODH/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Section 115BSection 133ASection 142ASection 142A(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 69B

justification for taxing such income U/s 115BBE of the Act. (iii).Non following of a decision of jurisdictional High Court is mistake apparent from record rectifiable u/s 154/254(2) of the Act. ACIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., (2008) 305 ITR 227 (SC), CIT v. ArunaLuthra

8Th Batalian India Reserve Caf, Rajnandgaon vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, Ghaziabad

ITA 191/RPR/2022[2015-16 (Q-4)]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Aug 2023

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: S/shri Hardik Chordia & Pratik Sadrani, CAs

Section 154Section 200ASection 234E

u/s.200A of the Act, filed “correction statements” with the DCIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad on 02.02.2022. The DCIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad not finding any “mistake apparent from record” passed rectification orders u/s.154 of the Act dated 02.02.2022 without carrying out any changes in the original orders passed u/s.200A ... Centralized Processing Cell-TDS, Ghaziabad ITA Nos. 184 to 191/RPR/2022 assessee appellant required fresh investigation of facts, the same, thus, not being a “mistake apparent from record” fell beyond the scope and ken of Section 154 of the Act. Accordingly, the CIT(Appeals) on the basis of his aforesaid observations