ITO WARD 10(2), DELHI V. GNOSIS PHARMACEUTICALS PVT LTD , DELHI

MA 386/DEL/2022

AI Insights

The case involves a Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue seeking to recall the Tribunal's earlier order which had decided in favor of the Assessee regarding the late payment of ESI & PF contributions. The Revenue argued that a subsequent Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT-1, which favored the Revenue on the same issue, warranted a recall of the Tribunal's order. However, the Tribunal dismissed the application, citing that the powers under section 254(2) are limited to correcting errors apparent on the record and do not extend to re-evaluating decisions based on subsequent legal developments.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 712874 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Other Referred Cases: Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT-1, CIT vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd., ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., CIT vs. Gracemac Corporation, Beghar Foundation vs. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy, Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. M/s. K.L. Rathi Steels Limited
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SANYA KHURANA
• Keywords: Question of law; Rectification of order

Judgement Text

"1 ITO Vs. Gnosis Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘H’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M. A NO. 386/Del/2022 [In ITA No. 1714/Del/2022] (Assessment Year- 2018-19) ITO Ward 10(2) Delhi (APPLICANT) vs Gnosis Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. B-102, 1st Floor, Pushpanjali Enclave, Pitampura, New Delhi PAN: AACCK5406H (RESPONDENT) Applicant by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr DR Respondent by Ms. Sanya Khurana, CA ORDER PER MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The above Miscellaneous application is filed by the Revenue with a prayer to recall the order of the Tribunal dated 21/09/2022 in ITA No. 1714/Del/2022 for the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the Tribunal while deciding the above appeal, allowed the Grounds of the Appeal of the Assessee regarding the issue of late payment of ESI & PF. Further submitted that the issue of allow-ability of deduction u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act has been finally decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT-1 in Civil Appeal No. 2833 of Date of Hearing 25.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 30.07.2025 Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITO Vs. Gnosis Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. 2016, vide order dated 12/10/2022 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The ground of the Assessee regarding late payment of ESI & PF deserves to be decided in favour of the Revenue, therefore, sought for allowing the captioned MA and restoring the ITA to its original file for fresh adjudication of the issue. 3. The Assessee's Representative submitted that the order of the Tribunal cannot be recalled since there is no error apparent from record and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to recall its own order except there is any error apparent on record as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Telecom Ltd. thus, sought for dismissal of the MAs filed by the Revenues. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The issue regarding allow-ability of late payment of ESI and PF has been decided in favour of the Revenue by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (supra) on 12/10/2022. The Appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No. 1714/Del/2022 for Assessment Year 2018-19 have been heard on 21/09/2022 and the order has been pronounced by the Tribunal on the same day. During the pronouncement of the orders in the above referred Appeals by the Tribunal, the benefit of the above Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (supra) was not available. Therefore, the Grounds of Appeal of the Assessee Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITO Vs. Gnosis Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. on the issue of late payment of ESI & PF has been decided in favour of the Assessee. Now the Department has filed the present M.A with a prayer to recall the order of the Tribunal on the ground that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided the issue of late payment of ESI & PF in favour of the Revenue. 5. The similar question in the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue has been decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal of Mumbai Bench in MA No.167/MUM/2023 (Arising out of ITA No.1634/Mum/2021) vide order dated 29/05/2024,wherein while dismissing the MA filed by the Department, it is held as under: - “11. Thus, the scope is of rectifying the mistake which is apparent from the record on the date of passing the order. On the scope of section 254(2) of the Act, it would be relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd, reported in (2022) 440 ITR 1 (SC) wherein Hon’ble Court has defined the scope of powers u/s.254(2). The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the powers u/s.254(2) of the Act are akin to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and while considering the application u/s.254(2) of the Act, the Appellate Tribunal is not required to re-visit its earlier order and to go into details on merits. The powers u/s. 254(2) are that they are only to rectify or correct any mistake apparent from the record. The relevant Observation of the Court reads as under:- ―3.2 Having gone through both the orders passed by the ITAT, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the ITAT dated 18-11- 2016 recalling its earlier order dated 6-9-2013 is beyond the scope and ambit of the powers under section 254(2) of the Act. While allowing the application under section 254(2) of the Act and recalling its earlier order dated 6-9-2013, it appears that the ITAT has re-heard the entire appeal on merits as if the ITAT was deciding the appeal against the order passed by the C.I.T. In exercise of powers under section 254(2) of the Act, the Appellate Tribunal may amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1) of section 254 of the Act with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record only. Therefore, the powers under section 254(2) of the Act are akin to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. While considering the application under section 254(2) of the Act, the Appellate Tribunal is not required to re-visit its earlier order and to go into detail on merits. The powers under section 254(2) of the Act are only to rectify/correct any mistake apparent from the record. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITO Vs. Gnosis Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. At this point it is relevant to quote the provisions of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. 1. Application for review of judgment-(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved- (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but, from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order. (2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review. [Explanation. The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.] 13. Ergo, the Explanation clearly envisages that the decision on a question of law on which judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any of the case shall not be the ground for review of said judgment. Thus, there is a clear prohibition to review or revive the order simply based on the subsequent decision of a superior Court. This dictum has to be followed especially in the cases where lis has attained finality and qua both the parties the matter has been settled by the Court. 14 The Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Beghar Foundation vs. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy reported in (2021) 123 taxmann.com 344 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court made following observations:- ―4. The present review petitions have been filed against the final judgment and order dated 26-9-2018. 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 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 petitions are accordingly dismissed. 15. Thus, when the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly opined that the change in law or subsequent decision / judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench or a larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground of review, then where is the scope of recalling the order within the power and ambit of Section 254(2). Admittedly, when the judgment of the Tribunal was passed, it was based on the law binding on the Tribunal and authorities below by series of judgments of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court and other High Courts as noted above. Thus the decision of the Tribunal was rendered, prior to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services P Ltd (supra), and before this judgment, the law as was prevalent was that no prima facie disallowance can be made in case of payment towards employees’ contribution to PF and ESIC if the same has been paid on or before the due date Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITO Vs. Gnosis Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. of filing of return of income. If the ld. AO or CPC has made the disallowance u/s. 143(1), contrary to the judgment of Jurisdictional High Court, then at that point of time such a disallowance was ostensibly unsustainable. 16. Be that as may be now that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that payment of employees’ contribution of PF and ESIC should be made before the due date in respective Act for reduction, but that does not lead to an inference that where the matter had already attained finality and there is no appeal pending, then the subsequent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court cannot be the ground for recalling of the matter as held by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. If the Revenue was aggrieved, then appeal should have been filed before the Hon’ble High Court. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court will apply in all the cases where the lis or cases are pending before any Court or forum. But once the issue in the appeal has attained finality following the earlier binding precedence of Jurisdictional High Court and there is no lis pending, and then based on subsequent judgment of a superior Court do not alter the finality of the judgment. If the Revenue’s contention is to be accepted, then whenever a judgment is reversed by a higher Court or by any Constitutional Court subsequently in some different case, then all the appeals and matters which have been decided following the earlier order of the Constitutional Courts / High Court or Supreme Court does not mean that all such orders should be recalled even when there is no lis pending and to disturb the finality. 17. This principle has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court again in the case of CIT vs. Gracemac Corporation reported in (2023) 456 ITR 135 vide order dated 03/07/2023, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had made the following observations:- ―5. Apart from this, it has also been brought to our notice by the learned ASG that in CIT (International Taxation) v. Microsoft Corporation (MS Corp.) [2023] 151 taxmann.com 372/453 ITR 746 (SC) bearing SLP (C) Dy. No. 7076/2023, a coordinate Bench of this Court by an order dated 20-3-2023 dismissed the special leave petition and liberty has been reserved to reopen and/or revive the special leave petition in the event the review petition in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P.) Ltd. (supra) is allowed. 6. In our view, as on today, Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P.) Ltd. (supra) is holding the field. In the event, the aforesaid decision is overruled, that cannot have a bearing on the present case, as it will have an impact only on the judgment passed in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P.) Ltd. (supra) and the cases to be decided thereafter. 7. In other words, if once a judgment is passed by a Court following another judgment and subsequently the latter judgment is overruled on a question of law, it cannot have an effect of reopening or reviving the former judgment passed following the over ruled judgment nor can the same be reviewed. This is having regard to the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short \"CPC\") which reads as under: \"Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. Application for review of judgment. — (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved— (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITO Vs. Gnosis Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order. Explanation - The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.\" 8. The explanation is also in the nature of an exception. In other words, the Explanation being in the nature of a proviso is a qualifying or an exception to what is stated in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC which states the grounds for seeking a review. Hence, the object and intendment of the Explanation must be given its full effect. The object and purpose of the Explanation can be related to the following three maxims: 15 (i) Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa (No man should be vexed twice for the same cause); (ii) Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (It is in the interest of the State that there should be an end to a litigation); and (iii) Res judicata pro veritate occipitur (A judicial decision must be accepted as correct).‖ (Emphasis added) 18. Again the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the same principle in the case of Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise (J And K) vs. Saraswati Agro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd in SLP (Civil) Diary No(s).18051/2023 and others, vide judgment and order dated 04/07/2023 had made following observations:- ―………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………Thus, in substance, by filing the miscellaneous application the revenue was seeking a second review of the said judgment which is impermissible in law (Order XLVII Rule 9 CPC). Secondly, by ignoring the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC and the principle that emerges from the same, what is sought to be contended by learned ASG is that if a judgment is overruled by this Court by a subsequent judgment, then the overruled judgment will have to be reopened and on reopening the said judgment will have to be brought in line with the subsequent judgment which had overruled it. This is not permissible in law for two reasons: firstly, there has to be finality in litigation and that is in the interest of State. Secondly, a person cannot be vexed twice. This is epitomized by the following maxims: 16 (i) Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa (No man should be vexed twice for the same cause); (ii)Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (It is in the interest of the State that there should be an end to a litigation); and (iii)Res judicata pro veritate occipitur (A judicial decision must be accepted as correct). These maxims would indicate that there must be an end to litigation otherwise the rights of persons would be in an endless confusion and fluid and justice would suffer. That is why the explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 which is a wholesome provision has been inserted to the Code of Civil Procedure. It states that once there is a subsequent judgment overruling an earlier judgment on a point of law, the earlier judgment cannot be reopened or reviewed on the basis of a subsequent judgment.‖ Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITO Vs. Gnosis Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (Emphasis added) 19. In a latest judgment, division Bench of three judges vide judgment and order dated 17/05/2024 in the case of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. M/s. K.L. Rathi Steels Limited and Others in Miscellaneous Application No.414 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No.11857/2016 alongwith various other Miscellaneous Applications had elaborated this entire law and review based on subsequent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and interpreting Rule 1 of order XLVII of CPC specifically the scope of Explanation in Rule 1 as incorporated above. 39. Order XVLII does not end with the circumstances as section 114, CPC, the substantive provision, does. Review power under section 114 read with Order XLVII, CPC is available to be exercised, subject to fulfilment of the above conditions, on setting up by the review petitioner any of the following grounds: (i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence; or (ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or (iii) any other sufficient reason. 40. Insofar as (i) (supra) is concerned, the review petitioner has to show that such evidence (a) was actually available on the date the court made the order/decree, (b) with reasonable care and diligence, it could not be brought by him before the court at the time of the order/decree, (c) it was relevant and material for a decision, and (d) by reason of its absence, a miscarriage of justice has been caused in the sense that had it been produced and considered by the court, the ultimate decision would have been otherwise. Regarding (ii) (supra), the review petitioner has to satisfy the court that the mistake or error committed by it is self-evident and such mistake or error can be pointed out without any long- drawn process of reasoning; and, if such mistake or error is not corrected and is permitted to stand, the same will lead to a failure of justice. There cannot be a fit-in all definition of ―mistake or error apparent on the face of the record‖ and it has been considered prudent by the courts to determine whether any mistake or error does exist considering the facts of each individual case coming before it. 42. With regard to (iii) (supra), we can do no better than refer to the traditional view in Chhajju Ram (supra), a decision of a Bench of seven Law Lords of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It was held there that the words ―any other sufficient reason‖ means ―a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified immediately previously‖, meaning thereby (i) and (ii) (supra). Notably, Chhajju Ram (supra) has been consistently followed by this Court in a number of decisions starting with Moran Mar Basselios Catholics v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius. 43. There are recent decisions of this Court which have viewed ‗mistake‘ as an independent ground to seek a review. Whether or not such decisions express the correct view need not detain us since the review here is basically prayed in view of the subsequent event. 44. As noted above, the Explanation in Rule 1 Order XLVII was inserted in 1976. It reads: ―Explanation.— The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.‖ xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx I. PRECEDENTS CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION 48. There are a few decisions of this Court where the Explanation to Rule 1 of Order XLVII, CPC has since been considered. 49. The earliest decision is Shanti Devi v. State of Haryana29 where the Court rejected the review petition by holding that the contention that the judgment Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITO Vs. Gnosis Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. sought to be reviewed was overruled in another case subsequently is no ground for reviewing the said decision. Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure clearly rules out such type of review proceedings. 50. Reference may next be made to the decision in Union of India v. Mohd Nayyar Khalil30. There, the impugned order had followed a three-Judge Bench judgment of this Court. Such judgment was admittedly pending consideration before a Constitution Bench. Taking note of such facts, it was held that: ―2. *** Even if the question regarding the legality of the said three-Judge Bench decision is pending scrutiny before the Constitution Bench the same is not relevant for deciding the review petition for two obvious reasons — firstly, this was not pointed out to the Bench which decided the civil appeal; and secondly, by the time the impugned order was passed the three-Judge Bench judgment had not been upset and even in future if the Constitution Bench takes a contrary view it would be a subsequent event which cannot be a ground for review as is clear from the explanation to Order 47 Rule 1(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure ***‖. (emphasis supplied) The principle, thus, laid down is that a decision being upset in the future would be a subsequent event which could not be a ground to seek review. 51. In Nand Kishore Ahirwar v. Haridas Parsedia, a Bench of three Hon‘ble Judges, while dismissing the review petitions before it, made pertinent observations reaching out to the very core of the said Explanation. This Court observed that simply because there has been a Constitution Bench decision, passed in the aftermath of the judgment impugned, would be no ground for a review of the said judgment. It also went on to observe that a reference to a Constitution Bench would stand on a still weaker footing. 52. The question arising for decision in State of West Bengal v. Kamal Sengupta32 was whether a tribunal established under section 4 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 can review its decision on the basis of a subsequent order/decision/judgment rendered by a coordinate or larger Bench or any superior court or on the basis of subsequent event/development. It was contended on behalf of the State that any subsequent decision on an identical or similar point by a coordinate or larger Bench or even change of law cannot be made the basis for recording a finding that the order sought to be reviewed suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record. After considering a host of decisions with a finetooth comb, the Court went on to cull out the principles of review in paragraph 35 of the decision which is extracted hereunder: ―35. The principles which can be culled out from the above noted judgments are: (i) The power of the Tribunal to review its order/decision under Section 22(3)(f) of the Act is akin/analogous to the power of a civil court under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. (ii) The Tribunal can review its decision on either of the grounds enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 and not otherwise. (iii) The expression ‗any other sufficient reason‘ appearing in Order 47 Rule 1 has to be interpreted in the light of other specified grounds. (iv) An error which is not self-evident and which can be discovered by a long process of reasoning, cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of record justifying exercise of power under Section 22(3)(f). (v) An erroneous order/decision cannot be corrected in the guise of exercise of power of review. (vi) A decision/order cannot be reviewed under Section 22(3)(f) on the basis of subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench of the tribunal or of a superior court. Printed from counselvise.com 9 ITO Vs. Gnosis Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (vii) While considering an application for review, the tribunal must confine its adjudication with reference to material which was available at the time of initial decision. The happening of some subsequent event or development cannot be taken note of for declaring the initial order/decision as vitiated by an error apparent. (viii) Mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review. The party seeking review has also to show that such matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before the court/tribunal earlier.‖ (emphasis supplied). This Court, in Subramanian Swamy v. State of Tamil Nadu33, has read the Explanation as follows: ―52. *** The Explanation to Order XLVII, Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 provides that if the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the court is based, is reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior court in any other case, it shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment. Thus, even an erroneous decision cannot be a ground for the court to undertake review, as the first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review petition is that the order, review of which is sought, suffers from any error apparent on the face of the order and in absence of any such error, finality attached to the judgment/order cannot be disturbed. 54. The final one is a decision of the Constitution Bench in Beghar Foundation v. K.S. Puttaswamy34. The majority was of the following view: ―2. The present review petitions have been filed against the final judgment and order dated 26- 9-2018. 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 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 petitions are accordingly dismissed. Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 89. The relevant principles deducible from the precedents on the Explanation to Rule 1 that we have considered, for the purpose of deciding the present reference, are as follows: a) in case of discovery of a new or important matter or evidence, such matter or evidence has to be one which existed at the time when the decree or order under review was passed or made; and b) Order XLVII would not authorize the review of a decree or order which was right when it was made on the ground of some subsequent event. What follows is that Order XLVII of the CPC does not authorize a review of a decree, which was right, on the happening of some subsequent event. With the introduction of the Explanation, there seems to be little room for any serious debate on the point under consideration. Parliament, in its wisdom, has accepted what the Law Commission recommended. Resultantly, what the statute prohibits, cannot be permitted by the Court. If permitted, the Court would be acting contrary to law. What the Parliament has done, the Court cannot undo unless the law enacted by the Parliament is declared ultra vires. The vires of the Explanation not being under challenge during more than four decades of its existence, it is not for the Court to ignore the Explanation. Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Printed from counselvise.com 10 ITO Vs. Gnosis Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. 104. We, thus, hold that no review is available upon a change or reversal of a proposition of law by a superior court or by a larger Bench of this Court overruling its earlier exposition of law whereon the judgment/order under review was based. We also hold that notwithstanding the fact that Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) has since been wiped out of existence, the said decision being the law of the land when the Civil Appeals/Special Leave Petitions were finally decided, the subsequent overruling of such decision and even its recall, for that matter, would not afford a ground for review within the parameters of Order XLVII of the CPC. (Emphasis added) The aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court had elaborately dealt the issue of power to rectify error and power to review and after referring to catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held that, if the judgment has been passed by the Court following another judgment and subsequently by later judgment, the decision has been overruled or reversed, cannot have the effect of reopening or reviewing the former judgment based on following overruled judgment nor can the same be reviewed. The aforesaid judgment clearly clinches the issue that the subsequent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services P Ltd. Vs CIT reported in 143 Taxmann.com 178, the earlier judgment passed by the Tribunal based on the binding precedents cannot be recalled or reviewed. Once this is the law of the land, then we are unable to appreciate the contention of the Revenue that the judgment of the Tribunal should be recalled which has been passed following catena of judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court and other High Courts prevalent at that time in light of the subsequent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court this would be against the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases specially once this law has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various judgments which we are bound to follow. 20. We are aware that many of the Co-ordinate Benches have recalled the order of the Tribunal on this issue on the principle of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. reported in (2008) 305 ITR 227. In the aforesaid case the issue was that the Tribunal has passed an order on 27/10/2000 upholding the decision of CIT that assessee was not entitled for exemption u/s.11. Thereafter, the Miscellaneous Application was filed u/s. 254(2) to rectify the error committed by the Tribunal in the decision rendered by any appeal as it has not followed the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hiralal Bhagwati vs. CIT reported in [2000] 246 ITR 188; Suhrid Geigy Ltd vs. Commissioner of Surtax reported in (1999) 237 ITR 834 which was already available on the date of the order. Thus, non- consideration of binding decision of the Jurisdictional High Court which was not followed by the Tribunal, rather it was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal therefore, Miscellaneous Application was filed and Tribunal had then recalled the order. Against this recalling of the order, Revenue had filed the writ petition which was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court. Thus, before the Hon’ble Supreme Court one of the question was, whether the ITAT was right in exercising the powers under subsection (2) of Section 254 on the ground that there was a mistake apparent from record committed by the Tribunal while deciding the appeal and whether it could have recalled the earlier order of the Tribunal on that ground. Thus, the core issue was, whether non-consideration of a decision of the Jurisdictional High Court or of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Printed from counselvise.com 11 ITO Vs. Gnosis Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. which was already existing at that time when the judgment was rendered by the Tribunal can be stated to be mistake apparent from the record. The Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld that the Tribunal was right in holding that it was a mistake which can be said to be mistake apparent from the record which could be rectified u/s.254(2). There was no such principle which has been laid down that if after passing of the order of the Tribunal which has attained finality between the parties and in subsequent judgment is rendered by the superior Court, the same should also be recalled within the scope of Section 254(2). Though the Hon’ble Supreme Court had referred to a decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of Suhrid Geigy Ltd vs. Commissioner of Surtax reported in (1999) 237 ITR 834 that if the point is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court rendered prior or even subsequent to the order of rectification, it could be a mistake apparent from the record u/s. 254(2) and could be corrected by the Tribunal. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has referred this judgment and only held that if a judgment is being rendered by any High Court or Supreme Court that means the law was always being the same and if a subsequent decision alters the earlier one, the later decision does not make a new law. This observation of the Court does not lead to any inference to draw that any rectification order u/s. 254(2) can be based on subsequent judgment which comes later on. On the contrary, all the aforesaid judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court which we have quoted above extenso have clearly held that there would be no review or recall of the order based on the subsequent judgment. Finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. on the fact of the case has concluded as under:- ―In the present case, according to the assessee, the Tribunal decided the 47 matter on October 27, 2000. Hiralal Bhagwati was MA No.167/MUM/2023 M/s. ANI Integrated Services Ltd., 26 decided a few months prior to that decision, but it was not brought to the attention of the Tribunal In our opinion, in the circumstances, the Tribunal has not committed any error of law or of jurisdiction in exercising power under sub-section (2) of section 254 of the Act and in rectifying the \"mistake apparent from the record\" Since no error was committed by the Tribunal in rectifying the mistake, the High Court was not wrong in confirming the said order Both the orders, therefore, in our opinion, are strictly in consonance with law and no interference is called for.‖ 21. The sequitor of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is that, if already existing judgment of Jurisdictional High Court is not brought to the notice or attention of the Tribunal, then the Tribunal can recall the order while exercising the powers u/s.254(2). 22. Even otherwise also once in the latest decision in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd. (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court have clearly held that the powers u/s. 254(2) of the Income Tax are akin to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, then it cannot be held that scope of power u/s.254(2) is beyond and much larger than scope of review as given in the Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC. In fact, the scope of Section 254(2) is much limited and the scope of review is much wider. Accordingly, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and several other judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court cited supra, we hold that order of the Tribunal cannot be recalled based on the subsequent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court when the order of the Tribunal had attained finality between the parties. Printed from counselvise.com 12 ITO Vs. Gnosis Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the department is dismissed. 23. In the result, Miscellaneous Application of the Revenue is dismissed.” 6. By following the ratio laid down by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax CIR 15(1)(1) Mumbai Vs. ANI Integrated Services Ltd., in MA No.167/MUM/2023 (Arising out of ITA No.1634/Mum/2021) and finding no merit in the Miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue, we hold that there is no error apparent on record in the order of the Tribunal, which can be rectified under section 254(2) of the Income Tax, 1961. Accordingly, we dismiss the M.A No. 386/Del/2022 filed by the Revenue. 7. In the result, M.A. filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30th July, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MANISH AGARWAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 30th July, 2025 *Amit Kumar & R.Naheed, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR 6. Guard File Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "