Failure to consider judicial precedents not rectifiable under section 254(2); Upholds ITAT’s refusal to rectify

Telangana High Court dismisses Assessee’s writ petition on finding that there is no infirmity in the ITAT order dated 17.01.2025 dismissing the Miscellaneous Application filed under section 254(2); High Court observes that “…the grounds urged on behalf of the petitioner are not fit to be entertained in a proceeding under Section 254(2) of the Act. It is for the parties to draw the attention of the learned appellate Court to such errors, if any, which the learned ITAT may have committed in course of passing the appellate order.”; Court further notes that the Assessee filed a miscellaneous application under section 254(2) seeking rectification of ITAT order dated 12.06.2024 on grounds that the ITAT failed to consider various judicial precedents cited by the Assessee in support of its contention; High Court highlights ITAT’s observation that in view of Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Reliance Telecom Ltd. (2021) 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC), ITAT was conferred to correct and/or rectify the mistakes apparent on record and not beyond that; Further, High Court emphasizes ITAT’s view that the observations on merits that may have been decided erroneously within its jurisdiction are not amenable to correction in a proceedings under section 254(2); Noting Assessee’s submissions regarding an appeal filed against the order dated 12.06.2024 raising substantial questions of law, High Court concludes that there is no error in the impugned order. [In favour of revenue] (Related Assessment year : 2012-13) – [Oakton Global Technology Service Centre (India) (P) Ltd. v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, and another [TS-1615-HC-2025(TEL)] – Date of Judgement : 01.12.2025 (Telangana)]