THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(1), RAIPUR (CG) V. THE JILA SAHAKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT, RAIPUR (CG)

MA 29/RPR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves a Miscellaneous Application (MA) filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur against Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Raipur, concerning an earlier tribunal decision that vacated a significant disallowance related to the 6th Pay commission arrears. The revenue contended that the tribunal had erred in completely striking down the disallowance without considering the assessee's admission of a correct disallowance amounting to Rs.2,65,98,000. The tribunal, however, found that the earlier rectification by the Assessing Officer under section 154, which was acknowledged by the CIT(A), had rendered the disallowance non-existent, and thus, there was no basis for the revenue's MA.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 633489 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 09-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Other Referred Cases: Commissioner of Income Tax (IT-4), Mumbai v. Reliance Telecom Limited, CIT v. Pearl Woolen Mills, CIT v. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P.) Ltd., Sri Madireddy Venkat Reddy v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Range -11, Hyderabad, T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Brothers, CIT vs. HERO CYCLES (P) LTD etc., ACIT v. SAURASHTRA KUTCH STOCK EXCHANGE LTD.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYANKA PATEL; WAY OF MA
• Assessee Lawyers: R. B. DOSHI
• Keywords: Set aside; Difference of opinion; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Principle of natural justice; Rectification of order
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर Ûयायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR Įी पाथ[ सारथी चौधरȣ, ÛयाǓयक सदèय एवं Įी अǽण खोड़ͪपया, लेखा सदèय क े सम¢ । BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM Miscellaneous Application No. 29/RPR/2024 (Arising out of ITA No.236/RPR/2016) (Assessment Year: 2011-12) आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, AM: The captioned Miscellaneous Application is filed by the revenue in the case of the aforesaid assessee, arising out of the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur in ITA No. 236/RPR/2016 for the assessment year 2011-12 dated 08.04.2024. 2. The statement of facts and grievance in the form of grounds of MA submitted by the revenue in the present MA are culled out hereunder: The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- 1(1), Raipur, C.G. v s Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Indira Priyadarshini Bhawan, G.E. Road, Raipur, CG. PAN: AAAAJ2713L (अपीलाथȸ/Appellant) . . (Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent) Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से /Assessee by : Shri R. B. Doshi, CA राजèव कȧ ओर से /Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 16.05.2025 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 09.06.2025 2 Miscellaneous Application No.29/RPR/2024 Arising out of ITA No.236/RPR/2016 DCIT-1(1) Vs Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Raipur 3 Miscellaneous Application No.29/RPR/2024 Arising out of ITA No.236/RPR/2016 DCIT-1(1) Vs Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Raipur 4 Miscellaneous Application No.29/RPR/2024 Arising out of ITA No.236/RPR/2016 DCIT-1(1) Vs Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Raipur 5 Miscellaneous Application No.29/RPR/2024 Arising out of ITA No.236/RPR/2016 DCIT-1(1) Vs Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Raipur 3. At the outset, Dr. Priyanka Patel, Ld. Sr. DR, reiterated the facts of the case and have read the ground assailed in the present MA, stating that there is a mistake apparent from record which needs to be rectified u/s 254 of the Income Tax Act. Ld. Sr. DR further submitted that the assessee itself has admitted before the Ld. CIT(A) that if there be any disallowance on this issue, then the correct disallowance should have been of Rs.2,65,98,000/-, whereas tribunal has struck down the disallowance completely ignoring the said admission of the assessee. With the aforesaid submission, it was the prayer that the Ld. CIT(A) had correctly directed to sustain the disallowance of Rs.2,65,98,000/-, which is deleted entirely by the tribunal, such decision of the tribunal constitutes a mistake apparent from record, therefore, the matter needs to be reconsider and rectified by recalling of the impugned order of the tribunal. 4. Per contra, Shri R. B. Doshi, CA, Authorized Representative on behalf of the assessee (in short, “Ld. AR”), submitted that the issue of disallowance of Rs.6,32,73,525/- on account of provision for 6th Pay commission arrears have been dealt with at length by the tribunal. It is observed that the subject disallowance was already vacated by Ld. AO by way of rectification order u/s 154 passed on 12.08.2014, i.e., well before the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) on 01.03.2016, and such fact was duly brought to the knowledge of Ld. CIT(A) which has been considered by the Ld. CIT(A) qua other three disallowances but for the disallowance 6 Miscellaneous Application No.29/RPR/2024 Arising out of ITA No.236/RPR/2016 DCIT-1(1) Vs Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Raipur under consideration regarding arrears of 6th pay commission, the first appellate authority remain oblivious. Such a fact has been duly brought on record by the tribunal and have decided the issue judiciously in favor of the assessee stating that, once a particular disallowance has been deleted by the Ld. AO by rectifying his order u/s 154 and the facts are brought to the knowledge of first appellate authority with the request to withdraw the grievance against the addition which is no more in existence, Ld. CIT(A) supposed to allow withdrawal of such ground as requested by the assessee. Ld. AR further submitted that as the issue was decided by the tribunal with due deliberations, considering all the facts and circumstances of the issue, there is no mistake apparent, patent, glaring and obvious on records, in view of such facts the request of department falls within the compass of review of the appellate order which is not permissible under the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act. It was, therefore, the prayer that the MA filed by the revenue exceeds the jurisdictional powers conferred upon the tribunal and the same, therefore, being not a mistake apparent from record would qualify to be rendered as not maintainable. 5. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the Tribunal has taken a view qua disallowance of Rs.6,32,73,525/- on account of provision for 6th Pay commission arrears, considering the rectification effected by the Ld. AO 7 Miscellaneous Application No.29/RPR/2024 Arising out of ITA No.236/RPR/2016 DCIT-1(1) Vs Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Raipur u/s 154 dated 12.08.2014, which was available before the Ld. CIT(A) also while passing the appellate order dated 01.03.2016 and accordingly, it is observed that once the rectification has been rendered by the Ld. AO and the disallowance for which the appeal was filed has vanished, the assessee has no grievance against such an addition / disallowance by the Ld. AO, there is no point for Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate such an issue, and further while adjudicating such issue no opportunity of being heard or any show cause was issued to the assessee which was a grave violation of principle of natural justice. The issue was discussed at length and decided by the tribunal after considering all the facts, thus, there was no escapement of facts and circumstances available on record which remain unconsidered by the tribunal, consequently, the issue raised by revenue by way of MA cannot be held as an issue constitutes any mistake apparent from record to be rectified under the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act. Once the Tribunal has thoughtfully considered the facts of the present case qua the issue under consideration, which laid it to adopt a conscious view, if any of the party to the order is not satisfied with the view adopted by the tribunal, the aggrieved party have the option to opt for available remedies before the appropriate higher forum. Any difference of opinion / understanding of the revenue, as against the opinion of Tribunal cannot constitute a patent, apparent, glaring and obvious mistake which can be rectified under the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act. 8 Miscellaneous Application No.29/RPR/2024 Arising out of ITA No.236/RPR/2016 DCIT-1(1) Vs Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Raipur 6. Considering the aforesaid observations, facts and circumstances, we, are of the considered opinion that in the present case there is no mistake apparent from record, the tribunal is functus officio so far as the decision which was already pronounced, therefore, the MA filed by the revenue with the request to recall the matter is leading towards the review of the appeal, which is not permissible as per the mandate of law, accordingly, the MA of department is not sustainable. 7. To support the aforesaid observations, that the tribunal is not empowered to reconsider / revisit its own order under the provisions of section 254(2) as held by various Hon’ble Courts. The mandate of law which allows the tribunal to deal with miscellaneous application, the tribunal is having limited powers to rectify any apparent and glaring mistake on the face of records. The tribunal is not expected to re-hear the entire case on merits or to revisit its earlier order and to deal with the merits on the basis of arguments by the appellant. In this respect, the principle of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (IT-4), Mumbai v. Reliance Telecom Limited dated December 3, 2021, in Civil Appeal No. 7110 of 2021 reported in [2021] 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC), shall be relevant and binding on us to follow, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: 9 Miscellaneous Application No.29/RPR/2024 Arising out of ITA No.236/RPR/2016 DCIT-1(1) Vs Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Raipur 3.2 Having gone through both the orders passed by the ITAT, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the ITAT dated 18-11-2016 recalling its earlier order dated 6-9-2013 is beyond the scope and ambit of the powers under section 254(2) of the Act. While allowing the application under section 254(2) of the Act and recalling its earlier order dated 6-9-2013, it appears that the ITAT has re- heard the entire appeal on merits as if the ITAT was deciding the appeal against the order passed by the C.I.T. In exercise of powers under section 254(2) of the Act, the Appellate Tribunal may amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1) of section 254 of the Act with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record only. Therefore, the powers under section 254(2) of the Act are akin to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. While considering the application under section 254(2) of the Act, the Appellate Tribunal is not required to re-visit its earlier order and to go into detail on merits. The powers under section 254(2) of the Act are only to rectify/correct any mistake apparent from the record. 4. In the present case, a detailed order was passed by the ITAT when it passed an order on 6-9- 2013, by which the ITAT held in favour of the Revenue. Therefore, the said order could not have been recalled by the Appellate Tribunal in exercise of powers under section 254(2) of the Act. If the Assessee was of the opinion that the order passed by the ITAT was erroneous, either on facts or in law, in that case, the only remedy available to the Assessee was to prefer the appeal before the High Court, which as such was already filed by the Assessee before the High Court, which the Assessee withdrew after the order passed by the ITAT dated 18-11-2016 recalling its earlier order dated 6-9-2013. Therefore, as such, the order passed by the ITAT recalling its earlier order dated 6-9-2013 which has been passed in exercise of powers under section 254(2) of the Act is beyond the scope and ambit of the powers of the Appellate Tribunal conferred under section 254(2) of the Act. Therefore, the order passed by the ITAT dated 18-11-2016 recalling its earlier order dated 6-9-2013 is unsustainable, which ought to have been set aside by the High Court. 5. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has dismissed the writ petitions by observing that (i) the Revenue itself had in detail gone into merits of the case before the ITAT and the parties filed detailed submissions based on which the ITAT passed its order recalling its earlier order; (ii) the Revenue had not contended that the ITAT had become functus officio after delivering its original order and that if it had to relook/revisit the order, it must be for limited purpose as permitted by section 254(2) of the Act; and (iii) that the merits might have been decided erroneously but 10 Miscellaneous Application No.29/RPR/2024 Arising out of ITA No.236/RPR/2016 DCIT-1(1) Vs Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Raipur ITAT had the jurisdiction and within its powers it may pass an erroneous order and that such objections had not been raised before ITAT. 6. None of the aforesaid grounds are tenable in law. Merely because the Revenue might have in detail gone into the merits of the case before the ITAT and merely because the parties might have filed detailed submissions, it does not confer jurisdiction upon the ITAT to pass the order de hors section 254(2) of the Act. As observed hereinabove, the powers under section 254(2) of the Act are only to correct and/or rectify the mistake apparent from the record and not beyond that. Even the observations that the merits might have been decided erroneously and the ITAT had jurisdiction and within its powers it may pass an order recalling its earlier order which is an erroneous order, cannot be accepted. As observed hereinabove, if the order passed by the ITAT was erroneous on merits, in that case, the remedy available to the Assessee was to prefer an appeal before the High Court, which in fact was filed by the Assessee before the High Court, but later on the Assessee withdrew the same in the instant case. 8. We may herein also note that in the case of CIT v. Pearl Woolen Mills [2011] 330 ITR 164/[2010] 191 Taxman 286 (Punj. &Har.), Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court have accorded similar findings which reads as under: “Held, that the Tribunal could not re adjudicate the matter under section 254(2). It is well settled that a statutory authority cannot exercise power of review unless such power is expressly conferred. There was no express power of review conferred on the Tribunal. Even otherwise, the scope of review did not extent to rehearing a case on the merits. Neither by invoking inherent power nor the principle of mistake of court not prejudicing a litigant nor by involving doctrine of incidental power, could the Tribunal reverse a decision on the merits. The Tribunal was not justified in recalling its previous finding restoring the addition, more so when an application for the same relief had been earlier dismissed.\" 9. In the case of CIT v. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P.) Ltd. [2007] 293 ITR 163/159 Taxman 122 (Delhi), their Lordships while considering the powers of the Tribunal under s. 254(2) of the IT Act, 1961 observed as under: 11 Miscellaneous Application No.29/RPR/2024 Arising out of ITA No.236/RPR/2016 DCIT-1(1) Vs Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Raipur “Under s. 254(2) of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal has the power to rectify mistakes in its order. However, it is plain that the power to rectify a mistake is not equivalent to a power to review or recall the order sought to be rectified. Rectification is a species of the larger concept of review. Although it is possible that the pre-requisite for exercise of either power may be similar (a mistake apparent from the record), by its very nature the power to rectify a mistake cannot result in the recall and review of the order sought to be rectified.” 10. Regarding scope of application of section 254(2), coordinate bench of the tribunal, ITAT Hyderabad, A bench in the case of Sri Madireddy Venkat Reddy v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Range -11, Hyderabad reported in [2013] 38 taxmann.com 60 (Hyderabad - Trib.) has dealt in detail and has observed as under: 9. The scope and ambit of application of section 254(2) is very limited. The same is restricted to rectification of mistakes apparent from the record. We shall first deal with the question of the power of the Tribunal to recall an order in its entirety. Recalling the entire order obviously would mean passing of a fresh order. That does not appear to be the legislative intent. The order passed by the Tribunal under s. 254(1) is the effective order so far as the appeal is concerned. Any order passed under s. 254(2) either allowing the amendment or refusing to amend gets merged with the original order passed. The order as amended or remaining unamended is the effective order for all practical purposes. An order under s. 254(2) does not have existence de hors the order under s. 254(1). Recalling of the order is not permissible under s. 254(2). Recalling of an order automatically necessitates rehearing and re-adjudication of the entire subject matter of appeal. The dispute no longer remains restricted to any mistake sought to be rectified. Power to recall an order is prescribed in terms of Rule 24 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, and that too only in case where the assessee shows that it had a reasonable cause for being absent at a time when the appeal was taken up and was decided ex parte. Judged in the above background the order passed by the Tribunal is indefensible. 10. The words used in s. 254(2) are 'shall make such amendment, if the mistake is brought to its notice'. Clearly, if there is a mistake, then an amendment is required to be carried out in the original order to correct that particular mistake. The provision does not indicate that the Tribunal can recall the entire order and 12 Miscellaneous Application No.29/RPR/2024 Arising out of ITA No.236/RPR/2016 DCIT-1(1) Vs Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Raipur pass a fresh decision. That would amount to a review of the entire order and that is not permissible under the IT Act. The power to rectify a mistake under s. 254(2) cannot be used for recalling the entire order. No power of review has been given to the Tribunal under the IT Act. Thus, what it could not do directly could not be allowed to be done indirectly. 11. In the case of CIT v. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P.) Ltd. [2007] 293 ITR 163/159 Taxman 122 (Delhi), their Lordships while considering the powers of the Tribunal under s. 254(2) of the IT Act, 1961 observed as under: \"Under s. 254(2) of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal has the power to rectify mistakes in its order. However, it is plain that the power to rectify a mistake is not equivalent to a power to review or recall the order sought to be rectified. Rectification is a species of the larger concept of review. Although it is possible that the pre-requisite for exercise of either power may be similar (a mistake apparent from the record), by its very nature the power to rectify a mistake cannot result in the recall and review of the order sought to be rectified.\" 12. Thus the scope and ambit of application u/s. 254(2) is as follows: \"(a) Firstly, the scope and ambit of application of s. 254(2) of IT Act is restricted to rectification of the mistakes apparent from the record. (b) Secondly, that no party appearing before the Tribunal should suffer on account of any mistake committed by the Tribunal and if the prejudice has resulted to the party, which prejudice is attributable to the Tribunal's mistake/error or omission, and which an error is a manifest error, then the Tribunal would be justified in rectifying its mistake. The \"rule of precedent\" is an important aspect of legal certainty in the rule of law and that principle is not obliterated by s. 254(2) of the Act and non-consideration of precedent by the Tribunal causes a prejudice to the assessee. (c) Thirdly, power to rectify a mistake is not equivalent to a power to review or recall the order sought to be rectified. (d) Fourthly, under s. 254(2) an oversight of a fact cannot constitute an apparent mistake rectifiable under the section. 13 Miscellaneous Application No.29/RPR/2024 Arising out of ITA No.236/RPR/2016 DCIT-1(1) Vs Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Raipur (e) Fifthly, failure on the part of the Tribunal to consider an argument advanced by either party for arriving at a conclusion is not an error apparent on record, although it may be an error of judgment. (f) Sixthly, even if on the basis of a wrong conclusion the Tribunal has not allowed a claim of the party it will not be a ground for moving an application under s. 254(2) of the Act. (g) Lastly, in the garb of an application for rectification under s. 254(2) the assessee cannot be permitted to reopen and reargue the whole matter as the same is beyond the scope of s. 254(2) of the IT Act.\" 13. Further, the order of the Tribunal is to be read in a whole and not in a piecemeal manner. For this purpose, we place reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. (P.) Ltd. [1989] 176 ITR 535/43 Taxman 45 wherein held that the decision of the Tribunal has not to be scrutinised sentence by sentence merely to find out whether all facts USP have been set out in detail by the Tribunal or whether some incidental fact which appears on the record has not been noticed by the Tribunal in its judgment. If the court, on a fair reading of the judgment of the Tribunal, finds that it has taken into account all relevant material and has not taken into account any irrelevant material in basing its conclusions, the decision of the Tribunal is not liable to be interfered with, unless, of course, the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal are perverse. It is not necessary for the Tribunal to state in its judgment specifically or in express words that it has taken into account the cumulative effect of the circumstances or has considered the totality of the facts, as if that were a magic formula; if the judgment of the Tribunal shows that it has, in fact, done so, there is no reason to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. 14. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the argument of the assessee's counsel. The Tribunal cannot review its own order and the remedy lies elsewhere. We do not find any mistake apparent on record which warrants rectification of Tribunal's order. 15. In the result, the MA filed by assessees is dismissed. 14 Miscellaneous Application No.29/RPR/2024 Arising out of ITA No.236/RPR/2016 DCIT-1(1) Vs Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Raipur 11. Regarding a mistake apparent from record there are landmark judgments wherein it has been explicitly explained and ruled that what should be categorized as a mistake apparent on record. For the sake of clarity, the three relevant judgments by Hon’ble Apex Court are extracted as under: I. T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Brothers*[1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC) DB \"A mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. As seen earlier, the High Court of Bombay opined that the original assessments were in accordance with law though in our opinion the High Court was not justified in going into that question. In Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. MallikarjunBhavanappa Tirumale [I960] 1 SCR 890, this court while spelling out the scope of the power of a High Court under article 226 of the Constitution ruled that an error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record—see Sidhramappa Andannappa Manvi v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1952] 21 ITR 333 (Bom.). The power of the officers mentioned in section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to correct “any mistake apparent from the record” is undoubtedly not more than that of the High Court to entertain a writ petition on the basis of an “error apparent on the face of the record.” In this case it is not necessary for us to spell out the distinction between the expressions “error apparent on the face of the record” and “mistake apparent from the record”. But suffice it to say that the Income-tax Officer was wholly wrong in holding that there was a mistake apparent from the record of the assessments of the first respondent.’’ II. CIT vs. HERO CYCLES (P) LTD etc. (1997)228 ITR 463(SC) Civil Appeal No.7665/96 2. The High Court declined to call for a reference under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961. It appears that the claim for deduction under s. 35B was not originally 15 Miscellaneous Application No.29/RPR/2024 Arising out of ITA No.236/RPR/2016 DCIT-1(1) Vs Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Raipur allowed at all. Thereafter, on an assessee’s application an order was passed by the CIT(A), Jalandhar, in which he directed certain allowances to be given on proportionate basis after verification of the assessee’s claim under s. 35B. The ITO thereafter entertained assessee’s prayer for rectification of the order and allowed the assessee’s claim in respect of matters like coloured albums, export staff travelling expenses, export sales commission, ECGC, foreign dealers visiting expenses. Rectification under s. 154 can only be made when glaring mistake of fact or law has been committed by the officer passing the order becomes apparent from the record. Rectification is not possible if the question is debatable. Moreover, the point which was not examined on fact or in law cannot be dealt as mistake apparent on the record. The dispute raised a mixed question of fact and law. The Tribunal was in error in upholding the assessee’s claim for weighted deductions. There is no point in sending the matter to the High Court to deal with the question raised at this stage. We treat the question as referred to this Court and answer the question in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. The appeal is allowed. III. ACIT v. SAURASHTRA KUTCH STOCK EXCHANGE LTD. [2008] 305 ITR 227 (SC) DB 37. In our judgment, therefore, a patent, manifest and self-evident error which does not require elaborate discussion of evidence or argument to establish it, can be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record and can be corrected while exercising certiorari jurisdiction. An error cannot be said to be apparent on the face of the record if one has to travel beyond the record to see whether the judgment is correct or not. An error apparent on the face of the record means an error which strikes on mere looking and does not need a long-drawn-out process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions. Such error should not require any extraneous matter to show its incorrectness. To put it differently, it should be so manifest and clear that no court would permit it to remain on record. If the view accepted by the court in the original judgment is one of possible views, the case cannot be said to be covered by an error apparent on the face of the record. 16 Miscellaneous Application No.29/RPR/2024 Arising out of ITA No.236/RPR/2016 DCIT-1(1) Vs Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Raipur 12. In view of the aforesaid binding, guiding and settled principle of law respectfully following the same, we reject the MA filed by the revenue, requesting for review of the earlier order of the tribunal in the garb of rectification of mistake by way of long drawn process of reasonings and arguments which is neither permissible nor allowed as per mandate of law. 13. It would be pertinent to note that, in the instant case, the revenue is unable to point out any mistake apparent / obvious emanating from the records which demands for rectification which is permissible within the scope of provisions of section 254(2), thus, in absence of any mistake apparent on record which warrants rectification in the impugned order of the tribunal, the contentions / dispute raised by the department in present MA found to be devoid and bereft of merits / substance, thus, cannot be acceded to. 14. In result, the MA of the revenue in MA No. 29/RPR/2024 stands dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations. Order pronounced in open court on 09/06/2025. Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) Sd/- (ARUN KHODPIA) Ɋाियक सद˟ / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद˟ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER रायपुर/Raipur; Ǒदनांक Dated 09/06/2025 Vaibhav Shrivastav 17 Miscellaneous Application No.29/RPR/2024 Arising out of ITA No.236/RPR/2016 DCIT-1(1) Vs Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Raipur आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, (Senior Private Secretary) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर/ITAT, Raipur 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant- Dy. CIT-1(1), Raipur 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent- Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Raipur 3. The Pr. CIT, Raipur (C.G.) 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर/ DR, ITAT, Raipur 5. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. // सȑािपत Ůित True copy // "