TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1611
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f employees' contribution to provident fund and Employees State Insurance Fund by the assessee. The assessee then prefers an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) against the order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 02-07-2020. The Authority disposed of the appeal in terms of his order dated 18-08-2021 affirming what the Assessing Officer had opined. 4. Against the said order, the assessee prefers an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, in terms of its order dated 07-04-2022, disposed of the appeal setting aside the order of assessment and that of the Commissioner (Appeal) and grants relief to the assessee as was sought for. Things were allowed to rest. 5. Revenue prefers a miscellaneous petition before the Tribunal for rectification of its order on the ground that there is a change in law declared by the Apex Court after the Tribunal had passed the order. The Tribunal, by the impugned order rejects the petition, on the ground that the Tribunal does not have power to condone the delay in filing the miscellaneous petition in terms of its order dated 25-05-2023. It is this order that drives the revenue to this Court in the subject petition. 6. The lea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....review. ... ... ... 16.8. Even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review." (Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court holds that in Beghar Foundation, a five Judge Bench holds that even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of a Coordinate Bench or a larger Bench cannot by itself be regarded as a ground for review. The Apex Court was following the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Beghar Foundation V. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (2021) 3 SCC 1, wherein the Apex Court holds as follows: "2. The present review petitions have been filed against the final judgment and order dated 26-9-2018 [K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5 J.) v. Union of India, (2019) 1 SCC 1]. We have perused the review petitions as well as the grounds in support thereof. In our opinion, no case for review of judgment and order dated 26-9-2018 [K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5 J.) v. Union of India, (2019) 1 SCC 1] is made out. We hasten to add that change in the law or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review. The review peti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the date when the original order was passed by the ITAT on 22nd June, 2022, it followed the law as it stood then That was overruled subsequently by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Checkmates Services (supra) Hence, we are of the view, that on the date when the Tribunal passed its original order (on 22nd June, 2022), it could not be said that there was any error or mistake apparent on the record, giving jurisdiction to the Tribunal to invoke Section 254(2) of the IT Act 9. We find that the view that we take is squarely covered by a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Infantry Security and Facilities v Income Tax Officer [Writ Petition No 17175 and other connected matters, dated 3-12-2024]. The Division Bench in Infantry Securities and Facilities (supra) was concerned with the exact same decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Checkmates Services (supra). The Division Bench, after examining the law on the subject, came to the conclusion that the Tribunal was in patent error in exercising jurisdiction under Section 254(2), and passing the impugned order. The relevant portion of this decision read thus- 14. In our clear opinion, the question wou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Court observed that no case for review of such judgment was made out, and most importantly on the ground that change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of coordinate or larger bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review. Such principles of law are squarely applicable in the facts of the present case. 18. In Sanjay Kumar Agrawal v. State Tax Officer (1) and Another, the Supreme Court following the decision in the Constitution Bench in Beghar Foundation (supra), made the following observations: "15 It is very pertinent to note that recently the Constitution Bench in Beghar Foundation v K. S Puttaswamy (Aadhaar Review 5 J.), held that even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of coordinate Bench or larger Bench by itself cannot be regard as a ground for review." 19. We may observe that recently a bench of the Tribunal in the case of ANI Integrated Services Ltd (supra), had the occasion to consider the very issue as raised by the Revenue in light of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Private Limited (supra). In such case similar applications were filed by the Revenue praying that the Tribunal set a....