IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION No. 35558 of 2025 DATED : 01.12.2025 Between:

Oakton Global Technology Service Centre (India) Private Limited … Petitioner AND The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, and another … Respondents

ORDER:

Sri Santosh Sagar Kapilavai, learned counsel appears for petitioner and Sri K. Sudhakar Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax appears for respondents.

2. The order dated 12.06.2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad (for short ‘ITAT’), in ITA.No.309/Hyd/2017, pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13 was made subject for rectification (for short ‘the Act’) which has been rejected by the learned ITAT vide order dated 17.01.2025 impugned herein.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned order as well.

4. It appears that the petitioner herein sought rectification of the order dated 12.06.2024 passed by the learned ITAT in Miscellaneous Application by invoking the provision under Section 254(2) of the Act with the assertion that the learned ITAT failed to consider various case laws cited by the petitioner/assessee in support of the contention. The learned Tribunal however opined that the powers under Section 254(2) of the Act as held in the case of CIT v. Reliance Telecom Limited, (2021) 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC) are conferred to correct and/or rectify the mistakes apparent from the record and not beyond that. Observations on merits which may have been decided erroneously within the jurisdiction of the ITAT are such which are not amenable to

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already preferred an Income-tax Appeal against the order dated 12.06.2024 passed by the learned ITAT by raising substantial questions of law. However, it is yet to be numbered. In our view, 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. Therefore, we do not find any error in the impugned order dated 17.01.2025.

The instant Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J 1^st DECEMBER, 2025.

kvni