Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad
Ito., Ward-13(3), Hyderabad vs Dondapati Sudhakara Rao, Hyderabad on 6 May, 2026
आयकर अपील य याया धकरण म, है दराबाद 'बी' बच, है दराबाद
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Hyderabad "B" Bench, Hyderabad
ी रवीश सूद, माननीय या यक सद य एवं ी मधस
ु ूदन साव डया, माननीय लेखा सद य
SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
MA No.02/Hyd/2026
(In आयकरअपीलसं ./I.T.A.No.701/Hyd/2025)
(िनधारण वष/ Assessment Year: 2020-21)
Income Tax Officer, Vs. Dondapati Sudhakara Rao,
Ward -13(3), Hyderabad.
Hyderabad. PAN : AEUPR8022H
(अपीलाथ / Appellant) ( थ / Respondent)
करदाता का ितिनिध / : None
Assessee
Represented by
राज का ितिनिध / : Dr. Sachin Kumar, CIT-DR
Department Represented by
सुनवाई समा होने की ितिथ/ : 06/03/2026
Date of Conclusion of Hearing
घोषणा की तारीख/ : 06/05/2026
Date of Pronouncement
ORDER
PER RAVISH SOOD, JM:
The present Miscellaneous Application is filed by the Revenue under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking rectification of 2 MA No.2/Hyd/2026 (In ITA No.701/Hyd/2025) Dondapati Sudhakara Rao the order passed by the Tribunal dated 20.08.2025, while disposing off the assessee's appeal in ITA No.701/Hyd/2025 for the assessment year 2020-21.
2. The Ld. Departmental Representative (for short, "DR") at the threshold of hearing of the application, submitted that the Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the assessee had failed to consider the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2022) 448 ITR 178 (SC) and also the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana in Synergies Castings Ltd. v. ACIT (2025) 173 taxmann.com 503 (Telangana). The Ld. DR submits that as the non- consideration of the jurisdictional High Court judgment constitutes a mistake apparent from the record in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ACIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., (2008) 305 ITR 227 (SC), therefore, the same renders the order passed by the Tribunal amenable for rectification under Section 254(2) of the Act.
3. We have heard the Ld. Authorized Representative of both parties, perused the record and the judicial pronouncements pressed into service by the Ld. DR.
3MA No.2/Hyd/2026
(In ITA No.701/Hyd/2025) Dondapati Sudhakara Rao
4. We find that the Tribunal while disposing of the appeal vide its order passed in ITA No. 701/Hyd/2025, dated 20.08.2025, had adjudicated the issue relating to disallowance of employees' contribution to PF/ESI under section 36(1)(va) of the Act and had allowed the appeal of the assessee by following the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in Raj Kumar Bothra vs. DCIT (Tax Case No.56 of 2025 dt.08.05.2025). However, it is an undisputed position that the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in PCIT Vs. Synergies Castings Ltd. (2025) 173 taxmann.com 503 (Telangana), which has a direct bearing on the issue, was not brought to the Tribunal's notice and consequently was not considered while disposing of the appeal. In the said case, the Hon'ble High Court while dealing with a situation where the intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act was passed on 18.05.2020 (Para no. 6 of the order), i.e., before the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (supra), had nevertheless rejected the assessee's argument and held that employees' contribution to PF/ESI deposited beyond the statutory due dates is not allowable under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. We find that, as per the settled position of law, a decision of the jurisdictional High Court is binding on the Tribunal and must be followed in preference to a non-jurisdictional High 4 MA No.2/Hyd/2026 (In ITA No.701/Hyd/2025) Dondapati Sudhakara Rao Court decision. In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ACIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (2008) 305 ITR 227 (SC) has held that non-consideration of a decision of the jurisdictional High Court or of the Hon'ble Supreme Court constitutes a mistake apparent from the record, rendering the order passed by the Tribunal amenable to rectification under section 254(2) of the Act.
5. In the present case, since the Tribunal has decided the issue by relying upon a non-jurisdictional High Court judgment without considering the binding judgment of the jurisdictional High Court, the same constitutes a mistake apparent from the record within the meaning of section 254(2) of the Act.
6. We thus, in terms of our aforesaid deliberations and the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ACIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., (2008) 305 ITR 227 (SC) recall the order of the Tribunal dated 20.08.2025 passed in ITA No.701/Hyd/2025 for the limited purpose of adjudicating the issue afresh after considering the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Synergies Castings Ltd. v. ACIT (2025) 173 taxmann.com 503 (Telangana).
5MA No.2/Hyd/2026
(In ITA No.701/Hyd/2025) Dondapati Sudhakara Rao
7. The Registry is directed to fix the appeal for hearing in due course after putting both parties to notice about the fresh date of hearing of the appeal.
8. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on this 06th day of May, 2026.
Sd/-Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
( ी मधस
ु ूदन साव डया) ( ी रवीश सूद)
(MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) (RAVISH SOOD)
लेखा सद /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ाियक सद /JUDICIAL MEMBER
Hyderabad, dated 06/05/2026
OKK/sps
आदे शकी ितिलिप अ ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to:-
1. िनधा रती/The Assessee : Dondapati Sudhakara Rao, H-23, AWHO Colony, Ved Vihar, Tirumulgerry, Hyderabad - 500015.
2. राज / The Revenue : The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(1), Hyderabad.
3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad.
4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, है दराबाद / DR, ITAT, Hyderabad
5. गाडफ़ाईल / Guard file आदे शानुसार / BY ORDER KAMALA KUMAR Digitally signed by KAMALA KUMAR ORUGANTI ORUGANTI Date: 2026.05.06 12:44:11 +05'30' Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Hyderabad