ITAT Rectification Limitation Starts from Order Receipt; Wrongly Citing Precedents is a Rectifiable Mistake.

I. Limitation Period for Miscellaneous Applications (M.A.)

Crux: The 6-month window for filing a Rectification Application starts from the date you receive the order, not the date the order was passed.

The Dispute

The Tribunal passed an order on February 25, 2025. However, the assessee only received the physical/official copy on June 6, 2025.

The Problem: The Revenue argued that since the order was dated February, the 6-month limit to file an M.A. had expired by the time the assessee filed it on December 29, 2025.
The Assessee’s Stance: They argued that the “limitation” should be reckoned from the end of the month in which the order was communicated (June 2025).

The Verdict

The Tribunal ruled in favour of the Assessee. It held that “communication” is the vital spark for limitation. Since the order was served on June 6, the period starts from the end of June. Consequently, the M.A. filed in December was within the legal timeframe, and the technical delay was condoned.

II. Rectification of “Mistakes Apparent from Record”

Crux: If the Tribunal misquotes a previous judgment to rule against you, they are legally obligated to “recall” their order.

The Dispute

In the original appeal, the Tribunal ruled against the assessee by citing a “Coordinate Bench” (a different panel of judges) decision.

The Mistake: The assessee proved that the Tribunal had wrongly observed the facts of that cited case. The previous judgment actually supported the assessee, or the context was entirely different.

The Verdict

The Tribunal admitted its error. It ruled that taking a “wrong observation” from a past order constitutes a mistake apparent from the record under Section 254(2) (now Section 363).

The Remedy: The Tribunal did not just “fix” the sentence; it recalled that specific ground of the original order. This means that part of the case will be heard fresh, as if the first wrong decision never happened.

Transition to the Income-tax Act, 2025

Under the new law effective as of April 2026:

Section 363 (New Act): Replaces Section 254. It maintains the power of the Tribunal to rectify mistakes within 6 months.
Digital Communication: The 2025 Act clarifies that “Date of Communication” includes the date a notice is made available on the E-filing Portal. If you don’t log in, the date of the “Alert/Email” might be taken as the start of limitation.
Recalling vs. Modifying: The new Act reinforces that the Tribunal cannot “review” its own order (change its mind on law), but it must “rectify” its order if it has misstated the facts or wrongly applied a precedent.

Strategic Takeaways for Taxpayers in 2026

Log the Receipt Date: Always preserve the envelope or the Portal Download Timestamp of an ITAT order. That date is your “Day Zero” for calculating the 6-month limit for an M.A.
Check the Precedents: If you lose a case at the ITAT, carefully read the judgments the judges cited. If they misquoted a case you relied upon, file a Miscellaneous Application immediately to have the order recalled.
Mistake of Fact vs. Law: Remember, an M.A. is only for “obvious” mistakes. If you want to argue that the judge’s logic was wrong, you must go to the High Court. If you want to argue the judge’s reading of a case was wrong, you use Section 363 (M.A.).
Condonation is a Right: If there is a delay in filing the M.A. because of late service of the order, don’t panic. As this case proves, the law supports condoning the delay if the service was late.

IN THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH ‘E’

SKF India Ltd.

ACIT^*

ANIKESH BANERJEE, Judicial Member
and MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, Accountant Member

MA No. 377 (Mum) of 2025^†
[Assessment year 2000-01]

MARCH 24, 2026

Ms. Sailee Gujarati, CA for the Applicant. Himanshu Joshi, SR. DR. for the Respondent.

ORDER

Anikesh Banerjee, Judicial Member.- The instant Miscellaneous Application (in short, ‘MA’) is filed by the assessee against the order of the ITAT, Mumbai Bench ‘E’ bearing ITA No.7544/Mum/2011 date of order 25.02.2025.

2. The Ld. AR has advanced her argument and stated that the MA was filed with a delay for 120 days. The Ld. AR stated that the original order passed by the ITAT on 25.02.2025 which was received by the assessee on June 2025. Accordingly, the assessee is liable to file the MA by 31.12.2025. The assessee has filed the application on 29.12.2025. Respectfully considering the order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Accost Media LLP v. Dy. CIT (Bombay) date of order 01.12.2025 held Where assessee received ITAT’s order on 24-3-2025 and filed rectification application on 16-72025, limitation of six months for filing such application commenced from date of communication of order and not date of order itself; accordingly, application was within time and order treating it as time-barred was liable to be quashed.

3. The Ld. DR argued but had not made any strong objection against the submission of the assessee.

4. In our considered view, we find that the order was duly communicated and served to the assessee on 6^th June 2025. Considering the order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court the assessee has filed MA within six months from the end of the month the order was received. So, the delay for filing appeal for 120 days is duly condoned and the appeal is taken for adjudication.

5. The objection has been raised by the Ld. AR in MA that the Bench has passed the order without following the order of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT-Kolkata and had not distinguished the same. The mistake is apparent from the record of the appeal. The Ld. AR submitted the written contention which is reproduced as below:-

“Mistake – Non-consideration of binding judicial precedent:

“8 . The Applicant submits that the issue under question is squarely covered by the jurisdictional coordinate bench of Mumbai ITAT in the favour of the assessee. The said decision was submitted in the compilation of judicial precedents vide paper book dated 29 December 2024 (Page No. 53 to 63). Further, the same was also cited during the appeal hearing by the counsel. The assessee submits that its case is squarely covered by the decision binding decision of Mumbai ITAT in the case of DCIT v Supreme Industries Limited (2008) 2 TMI 899. As per the said decision, no adjustment is required to be made to book profits in relation to tax on distributed dividend

9. The Revenue has not produced any decision contrary to the same.

10. The said decision is neither cited, nor distinguished in the impugned order.

11. Hence, non-consideration of decision rendered by Co-ordinate Bench on identical issue would amount to mistake apparent from record.

12. The Applicant also wishes to place reliance on the below judicial precedents (submitted in the paperbook dated 11 February 2026 which upheld that non-consideration of a binding judicial precedent is a mistake apparent from record and deserves rectification under section 254(2) of the Act (Kindly refer to page number as referred in the paperbook):

1	Honda Seil Power Products Ltd v. CIT ITR 466 (SC)	30-33
2	Reliance Communications Ltd v. Deputy Director of Income Tax- 2(1), Mumbai (Mumbai) [2007] 183 TTJ 388 (Mumbai) [18-11-2016]	34-48

13. In view of the above, the Applicant submits that the impugned order should be rectified to allow ground no. 9 in the favour of the assessee based on above submissions.

Mistake-Misinterpretation and incorrect distinction of a judicial precedent:

14. The assessee also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Kolkata ITAT in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax v. Balarampur Chini Mills Ltd. [2007] 109 ITD 146 (Kolkata)/ 14 SOT 372 (Kolkata) . In the said case, it was upheld that tax on profit distributed as dividend under section 115-0 is allowable as deduction in computation of book profit for purpose of section 115JB. In arriving at thesaid conclusion, the Hon’ble ITAT made comparison between fringe benefit tax and distribution of profit as per section 115-0 of the Act. However, the case clearly dealt with tax on distributed dividend under section 115-0 of the Act and its addition to book profits. Hence, the same was squarely applicable to the present case.

15. However, in the impugned order (at page 17 of the impugned order), it is mentioned that “. the dividend distribution tax (DDT) under section 115-0 does not constitute a fringe benefit tax” while ruling against the assessee.

16. Hence, the assessee submits that the said decision is incorrectly distinguished and misread. Hence, the same deserves to be rectified.”

6. The Ld. DR argued and respectfully relied on the order of the ITAT Mumbai Bench.

7. We heard the rival submission and considered the documents available in the record. We find that the tribunal has adopted the order of the ITAT Kolkata in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. [2007] 109 ITD 146/14 SOT 372 (Kolkata). After the said adoption the tribunal had made a mistake and taken a wrong observation from the said order of the Coordinate Bench. We find that the said mistake apparent from the record and accordingly we considering the assessee’s submission the Ground No.9 of the original order of tribunal is duly recalled. Further respectfully considering the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. CIT (SC) has held that the purpose of section 254(2) is to ensure that no party suffers on account of mistake committed by the tribunal and that the tribunal is duty bound to rectify any mistake apparent from the record which causes prejudice to either party. In the present case, we are satisfied that the observations recorded in the impugned order in Ground No.9 recalled reconsideration in light of the order of Coordinate Bench of ITAT Kolkata. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and to rectify the apparent mistake on record, we recall the Ground No.9 of the order of tribunal for adjudication the issue afresh. Accordingly, the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee is allowed.

8. In view of the above the order dated 25.02.2005 is in Ground No.9 is recalled and appeal is ordered to be restored to its original no. in situ. The registry is also directed to issue a fresh notice of hearing of both the parties.

9. In the result, the assessee’s MA No. 377/Mum/2025 is allowed.