DCIT Vs Brush Tech India (Karnataka High Court)
Karnataka HC Dismisses Revenue’s Plea Against ITAT; Rules that Later SC Judgment Can’t Revive Concluded Matters
The Karnataka High Court dismissed the Department’s writ petition challenging the ITAT’s refusal to entertain its rectification plea under Section 254(2).
The Revenue had filed a miscellaneous application before ITAT seeking rectification of its earlier order dated 07.04.2022 (which had allowed the Assessee’s appeal) based on a later Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2023) 6 SCC 451. The Tribunal rejected the application citing delay & lack of jurisdiction to reopen concluded matters.
The Department contended that since the Checkmate judgment was rendered later, the Tribunal should have recalled its earlier order. The High Court, however, observed that a subsequent change in law cannot reopen or revive an adjudication already concluded, as it would lead to “chaotic circumstances.”
Justice Nagaprasanna relied on the rulings of the Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer (2024) 2 SCC 362 & the Constitution Bench in Beghar Foundation v. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (2021) 3 SCC 1, which categorically held that a change in law or subsequent decision of a larger Bench cannot be a ground for review.
