← All Phrases

“mistake apparent on record”

Rectification & RevisionSection 154Section 154888 judgments

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

Leading authorities on mistake apparent on 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
87
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
57
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
50
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 on record

Vasantha Laxmi Veerapaneni, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1246/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA K HanmandlooFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 143Section 147Section 154

dated 13.06.2023 and called-upon the assessee to explain as to why an order u/sec.154 shall not be passed rectifying the mistake apparent on record inasmuch as, although, the total income was assessed at Rs.65,83,310/-, but, in the computation of income, the assessed income was taken at Rs.62

Rajasthan Cricket Association, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemptions Ward 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 37/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Apr 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Shyam Lal Agarwal, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr.DR
Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 154

above by AO in his rectification order, the matter needs verification and analysis on the claims made by appellant and is not some mistake apparent on record. Hence, this issue cannot be dealt u/s.154. In view of this action of AO is upheld and grounds of appeal are dismissed ... rectify the same by passing order u/s 154 of I.T. Act, 1961. However, the Ld. AO passed an order, without rectifying the mistakes apparent on record and passed an order u/s 154 on 15.12.2020 mentioning that, “In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the issue now raised before

Newry Properties Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp. Circle-4(1), Chennai

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

ITA 94/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 145(1)Section 154Section 194I

against claimed by the assessee of Rs.72,56,220/-. Subsequently, the assessee preferred an application u/s.154 of the Act to rectify the mistake apparent on record for not considering the entire TDS claimed in the return. However, the CPC vide order dated 26.10.2023 has rejected the application of the assessee

Gramin Vibhag Shramik Shikshan Sanstha Palghar, Maharashtra vs. Exemption Ward, Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 581/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Yeshwant Gupta, C.A. & Astin Meachery, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT, D/R
Section 10Section 11Section 119Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 143(1)

from 05/04/2022 and the approval was given only for AY 2022-23 to 2026-27. Since according to the NFAC, there was no mistake apparent on record which needed rectification, the order of the CPC was upheld. 7. We find that the CBDT, vide Circular No. 16/2021 has extended

Siraj Suhail Ahmeed, Chennai vs. ITO, Ward-1, Krishnagiri

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

ITA 44/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr. R.K.V. Sundar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs.Samantha Mullamudi, Addl
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 148Section 154Section 68

while completing assessment has not taken into account tax special rate of 60% u/s.115BBE and surcharge 25%. In order to rectify the mistake apparent on record, notice u/s.154 of the Act dated 18.11.2022 was issued to assessee proposing rectification. The assessee has failed to give any reply. Thus

Puran Chand HUF, Hisar vs. ITO Ward - 5, Hisar

ITA 483/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahayassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S Forum Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, C-134, Defence Colony, Central Circle-19, New Delhi – 110 024. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacf8920D Assessee By : Ms Vanshika Mehta, Advocate & Shri Nirbhay Mehta, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Monika Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025

For Appellant: Ms Vanshika Mehta, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 254(2)

appeal folder. Since, these additional grounds were not adjudicated at all by the Tribunal while disposing off the appeal which amounts a mistake apparent on record warranting rectification of the order u/s 254(2) of the Act. 4. Hence, we deem it fit and appropriate to recall the order passed

The Morbi Citizens Credit Co-Oprative Society Limited, Morvi vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 285/RJT/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Mar 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.285/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2020-21) (Hybrid Hearing) The Morbi Citizens Credit Co- Vs. The Assessment Unit, Operative Society Ltd., Income Tax Department Above Murlidhar Sales National Faceless Agency, Savsar Plot, Ram Assessment Center Chowk, Morbid - 363641 (Nfac), Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabat2850K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.R. Mankodi, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Pungalia, Ld.CIT.DR
Section 142(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Taxman 322 (SC), wherein amongst others, it was held that non-adherence to orders of Jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court is a mistake apparent on record, therefore, the above orders of the jurisdictional Tribunal require rectification under section 254 (2) of the Act.In this regard, we find that

Sumit Sethi, Jaipur vs. ADIT, CPC/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

ITA 1339/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

DCIT, CENTRALL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR due to late filing of Form 67, the allowing of FTC by the AO CPC, Bengaluru was a mistake apparent on record. The relevant operative para of the decision in the case of Shri Sanjeev Agarwal (supra) is extracted hereunder for ready reference

Sumit Sethi, Jaipur vs. ADIT, CPC/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

ITA 1338/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

DCIT, CENTRALL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR due to late filing of Form 67, the allowing of FTC by the AO CPC, Bengaluru was a mistake apparent on record. The relevant operative para of the decision in the case of Shri Sanjeev Agarwal (supra) is extracted hereunder for ready reference

Jt. CIT (OSD)-3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Sanjana Cryogenics Storage Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue are allowed

ITA 4769/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT D/R & Shri Bhangepatil
Section 143(1)

that, non-consideration of judicial precedents cited before the Co-ordinate Bench makes the order of the Co-ordinate Bench suffering from a mistake apparent on record. Accordingly, on this issue, the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench was recalled for all the three years to the extent

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sanjana Cryogenics Storage Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue are allowed

ITA 3633/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT D/R & Shri Bhangepatil
Section 143(1)

that, non-consideration of judicial precedents cited before the Co-ordinate Bench makes the order of the Co-ordinate Bench suffering from a mistake apparent on record. Accordingly, on this issue, the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench was recalled for all the three years to the extent

DCIT - 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sanjana Cryogenics Storages Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue are allowed

ITA 3632/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT D/R & Shri Bhangepatil
Section 143(1)

that, non-consideration of judicial precedents cited before the Co-ordinate Bench makes the order of the Co-ordinate Bench suffering from a mistake apparent on record. Accordingly, on this issue, the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench was recalled for all the three years to the extent

Ahmedabad Textile Industry'S Research Association, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Exmp, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 689/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Tr Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri AP Singh, CIT. DR and Shi Rignesh Das Sr.DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(15)Section 250

ATIRA Vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2015-16 to 2018-19 - 2– holding that AO has no jurisdiction under Section 154 of the Act for mistake apparent on record, which was pointed out by Appellant vide letter dated 4th April, 2018. 2. In law and in the facts and circumstances of Appellant

Ahmedabad Textile Industry'S Research Association, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Exmp, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 688/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Tr Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri AP Singh, CIT. DR and Shi Rignesh Das Sr.DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(15)Section 250

ATIRA Vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2015-16 to 2018-19 - 2– holding that AO has no jurisdiction under Section 154 of the Act for mistake apparent on record, which was pointed out by Appellant vide letter dated 4th April, 2018. 2. In law and in the facts and circumstances of Appellant

Ahmedabad Textile Industry'S Research Association, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Exmp, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 687/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Tr Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri AP Singh, CIT. DR and Shi Rignesh Das Sr.DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(15)Section 250

ATIRA Vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2015-16 to 2018-19 - 2– holding that AO has no jurisdiction under Section 154 of the Act for mistake apparent on record, which was pointed out by Appellant vide letter dated 4th April, 2018. 2. In law and in the facts and circumstances of Appellant

Ahmedabad Textile Industry'S Research Association, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Exmp, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 686/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Tr Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri AP Singh, CIT. DR and Shi Rignesh Das Sr.DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(15)Section 250

ATIRA Vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2015-16 to 2018-19 - 2– holding that AO has no jurisdiction under Section 154 of the Act for mistake apparent on record, which was pointed out by Appellant vide letter dated 4th April, 2018. 2. In law and in the facts and circumstances of Appellant

Ahmedabad Textile Industry'S Research Association, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Exmp, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 685/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Tr Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri AP Singh, CIT. DR and Shi Rignesh Das Sr.DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(15)Section 250

ATIRA Vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2015-16 to 2018-19 - 2– holding that AO has no jurisdiction under Section 154 of the Act for mistake apparent on record, which was pointed out by Appellant vide letter dated 4th April, 2018. 2. In law and in the facts and circumstances of Appellant

Manoj Tantia, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 25, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5944/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5944/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Baani Landbase Pvt Ltd., Dcit, Corporate One, Ground Floor, Vs. Circle-4(2), Plot No.5, District Center, Jasola, Central Revenue Building, Delhi. I.P. Estate, Delhi. Pan No.Aadcb0237E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 156Section 292B

face of the order; (iii) That the proceedings u/s 154 of the Act initiated vide Notice dated 26.04.2021 do not constitute mistake apparent from record, for the reason that the same issue was examined during assessment proceedings and constitutes change of opinion; (iv) That the addition made ... pursuant to mistake apparent from record particularly as Ld. AO had issued Notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 30.06.2021 for the reassessment. 3. That without prejudice to the aforesaid grounds of Appeal it is contended on merits, that the Ld. AO while making the impugned addition

Lq Pay India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1251/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1251/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Lq Pay India (P) Ltd Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax, Circle 5(1) Pan:Aadcl8417G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/03/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 40Section 40ASection 80J

again held that any controversial issue cannot be entertained u/s 154 of the Act, as the same cannot be stated to be "mistake apparent on record". Therefore, there is no scope in interfering with the Order and it is upheld.” 8. Thus, the learned CIT (A) has also observed that ... note that the scope of rectification of mistake u/s 154 of the Act is very limited and circumvented only to rectify the mistake apparent from record and cannot be extend ed to the issues which requires a long drawn reasoning and decisions. The claim of deduction u/s 80JJAA

Sultanpur Juth Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd., Sultanpur, Tal. Gondal, Dist. Rajkot vs. The DCIT, Circle-1 (1), Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 697/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.492 & 493 & 697/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2018-19 & 2020-21) Sultanpur Juth Seva Sahkari Assessment Unit, Nfac Mandali Ltd. (Present Juris. Acit-Dcit Vs. Cir-1(1) Sultanpur, At Sultanpur Tal: Gondal, Dist. It Office, New Aayakar Bhavan, Vatiaka, Rajkot – 364470 Rajkot - 360001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaabs0194F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sulabh Pad Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Taxman 322 (SC), wherein amongst others, it was held that non-adherence to orders of Jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court is a mistake apparent on record, therefore, the above orders of the jurisdictional Tribunal require rectification under section 254 (2) of the Act. In this regard, we find that