2025 (9) TMI 40 - HC - Income Tax

Review petition dismissed as matter already decided by Coordinate Bench; earlier order maintained per binding precedent

M/s Jharkhand State Cricket Association Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Patna.

The HC dismissed the review petition, holding the matter already decided by a Coordinate Bench and guided by Supreme Court precedents; the court found no ... Applicability of proviso to Section 2(15) - review petition of order [2024 (7) TMI 1677 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] - Income Tax has submitted that the similar issue has already been decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court [2025 (3) TMI 1003 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] - HELD THAT:- We, after going through the prayer and pleadings made in the review petition, as also, the order [2025 (3) TMI 1003 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] have found that the issue, which is the subject matter of the present review petition, has already been decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid order wherein relying on ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal [2023 (11) TMI 54 - SUPREME COURT] and in the case of Rimpa Saha [2025 (1) TMI 1525 - SUPREME COURT]] is of the view that no ground is available to review the order passed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether delay of 15 days in filing a review petition can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on the grounds set forth in the interlocutory application. 2. Whether a review petition is maintainable where the issue raised is identical to an issue already decided by a Coordinate Bench of the same High Court and where that Coordinate Bench has dismissed a similar review petition relying on the ratio of the Apex Court and on the ground that the matter fell outside the scope of review jurisdiction. 3. Whether a case remitted by a Tribunal/authority for fresh decision in view of higher court pronouncements and where the litigant had taken a concession before the Court can be effectively challenged by way of review of the Court's earlier order that remitted the matter. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act Legal framework: Section 5 of the Limitation Act permits courts to condone delay in filing an application or appeal if sufficient cause is shown. The discretionary power is exercised on demonstration of adequate cause for the delay. Precedent treatment: The Court applied the established principle that sufficiency of cause is to be evaluated on facts presented in the interlocutory application; prior authorities guide but were not expressly restated in reasoning. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court heard submissions and examined the grounds pleaded in the interlocutory application. It found that the applicant had set forth sufficient cause explaining the 15-day delay. No factor of prejudice to the other side or abuse of process was found or asserted that would outweigh the reasons given. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - the condonation was granted as an exercise of discretion under Section 5 upon finding of sufficient cause; the operative holding is that the particular 15-day delay and the grounds presented amounted to sufficient cause. Conclusions: Delay of 15 days in preferring the review petition was condoned and the interlocutory application under Section 5 stood allowed. Issue 2: Maintainability of review petition where identical issue has been decided by a Coordinate Bench Legal framework: The jurisdiction of a court to entertain review petitions is circumscribed by the rules governing review (limited to errors apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new evidence, or other narrowly defined grounds). Consistency of decisions among Coordinate Benches and the principle of not permitting re-litigation of identical issues absent exceptional circumstances are relevant. Precedent treatment: The Court relied on the position enunciated by higher judicial authorities regarding limits of review jurisdiction and followed the reasoning of a Coordinate Bench which had previously considered a substantially identical issue and dismissed review on those grounds. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined the pleadings and prayer in the present review petition and compared them with the earlier order of the Coordinate Bench. The Court found the issue to be identical and observed that the Coordinate Bench had already held that the matter did not fall within the scope of review jurisdiction - particularly where the earlier order had been passed after considering relevant Apex Court ratios. Given that the same point of law and facts were involved and no fresh or exceptional grounds were advanced to distinguish the earlier decision, the Court held there was no reason to take a contrary view. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where a Coordinate Bench of the same High Court has considered and decided an identical issue by dismissing a review petition (applying applicable higher court ratios), a subsequent review raising the same issue without new grounds is not maintainable; such subsequent review may be disposed of in terms of the earlier order. Conclusions: The present review petition was disposed of by applying the earlier Coordinate Bench's order; the Court declined to revisit the identical issue and disposed the petition in terms of that prior order. Issue 3: Effect of remittal and concessions on availability of review Legal framework: Review jurisdiction is limited and generally does not extend to re-evaluating orders that merely remit matters for fresh consideration, especially where orders were rendered in light of concessions or in view of higher court judgments requiring re-examination by the authority. Precedent treatment: The Court treated earlier Coordinate Bench reasoning - which emphasized that a case remitted because of a concession or pursuant to higher court precedent does not ordinarily fall within the ambit of review - as determinative for the present petition. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the Coordinate Bench had specifically considered circumstances where the earlier order remitted the matter for fresh decision in view of higher court pronouncements and had held such a situation not to be amenable to review jurisdiction. The present petition did not demonstrate any new ground such as an error apparent on the face of the record or newly discovered evidence that would justify review of an order which had simply remitted the matter for fresh decision. Therefore, review was inappropriate. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - an order remitting a matter for fresh adjudication in light of higher court judgment or made on the basis of a litigant's concession is generally not susceptible to review unless exceptional grounds (within the narrow statutory ambit) are shown. Conclusions: Since the instant review sought to challenge an order that was essentially remedial/remittal in nature and identical to matters previously dismissed on review by a Coordinate Bench, and no exceptional grounds were presented, review was not permitted; the petition was disposed of in terms of the earlier order remanding the matter. Cross-references and Operative Disposition The Court (being unanimous in reasoning) first allowed the interlocutory application condoning delay (Issue 1) and thereafter concluded (Issues 2-3) that the review petition could not be entertained because the identical question had already been decided by a Coordinate Bench and involved remittal/concession-based reasoning falling outside the scope of review jurisdiction; accordingly, the review petition was disposed of in terms of the earlier Coordinate Bench order, and pending interlocutory applications were disposed of consequentially.