A change in law cannot serve as grounds for reviewing previous Tribunal rulings, reaffirming that adjudications must follow the law as it was at the time of the original decision.

ORDER :

M.Nagaprasanna, J.

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayers:

"(A) set aside order dated order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, C Bench, Bangalore dated 16/6/2023 in M.A.No.77/Bang/2023 in ITA No.25/Bang/2022 (Annexure-A) is produced for A.Y. 2018-19.

(B) Condone the delay in filing the miscellaneous petition before Tribunal and direct the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to consider the miscellaneous petition on merits of the case

(B) Or Alternatively condone the delay in filing the miscellaneous petition before Tribunal and also hear the matter on merits of the case

(C) Pass such other orders as may be deemed appropriate under the circumstances of the case, in the ends of justice."

2. Heard Sri.E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt.Vani H, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and have perused the material on record.

3. Learned counsel for the parties in unison submits that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.No.27089/2023 (T-IT) disposed on 30.07.2025. The order reads as follows:

"The petitioner/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Department is at the doors of this Court calling in question an order dated 25-05-2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC-B’ Bench, Bengaluru (‘the Tribunal’ for short) rejecting Miscellaneous Petition filed by the revenue seeking rectification of the order dated 07-04-2022 passed in ITA No.2/Bang/2022.

2. Heard Sri E.I. Samanthi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri S.V. Ravishankar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. The respondent/assessee files its return of income tax. An order comes to be passed on 02-07-2020 under Section 143(1) of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 (‘the Act’ for short) whereby the return of income was disallowed due to delayed payment of 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 learned counsel appearing for the revenue Sri E.I. Sanmathi would contend that the law being laid down by the Apex Court though being subsequent, the petition should have been entertained by the Tribunal. The Tribunal erroneously rejects the miscellaneous petition on the ground of delay. There can be no delay, as the revenue has preferred the application immediately after the judgment of the Apex Court. He would seek quashment of the said order and permitting adjudication on merit of the miscellaneous petition.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Sri S.V. Ravishankar would seek to place reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in the case of PRAKASH D. KOLI v. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , [(2025) 176 Taxmann.com 481 (Bombay)], on an id