DCIT Vs Mangilal Padamchand (Karnataka High Court)
Karnataka HC to Revenue: Final means Final — You can’t reopen closed cases just because the law changed later- HC Dismisses Revenue’s Plea Seeking Recall of ITAT Order Based on Later Supreme Court Ruling in Checkmate Services
The Karnataka High Court dismissed the Revenue’s writ petition challenging the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal’s order dated 16.06.2023, which had refused to condone delay & entertain the Department’s miscellaneous application filed to rectify its earlier order for AY 2018-19.
The Revenue had filed a rectification petition before ITAT u/s 254(2) seeking to modify its prior order in light of the subsequent Supreme Court judgment in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2023) 6 SCC 451, which disallowed employees’ contribution to PF/ESI if paid beyond statutory due dates. The Tribunal rejected the application, holding it lacked jurisdiction to condone delay for such a belated filing.
The High Court noted that the issue was identical to that in W.P.No.27089/2023, already decided on 30.07.2025, & relied extensively on that reasoning. Referring to the Supreme Court’s rulings in Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. State Tax Officer (2024) 2 SCC 362& the Constitution Bench decision in Beghar Foundation v. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (2021) 3 SCC 1, the Court reiterated that a subsequent change or clarification in law cannot form the basis for review or rectification of a concluded case.
