Review jurisdiction cannot be invoked after a concession has been made, unless an error apparent on the record exists.

Order :

1. This instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT for condoning the delay of 40 days in preferring the instant review petition.

2. Reason has been assigned therein as it has been stated in paragraph-3.

3. Mr. Kumar Vaibhav, learned senior standing counsel appearing for the Income Tax is fair enough to submit that the delay in filing the instant review may be condoned so that the review may be disposed of on the merit.

4. Considering the said submission, the delay of 40 days in filing the instant review petition is hereby condoned.

5. The instant interlocutory application being I.A. No.11869 of 2024 stands allowed and disposed of.

Civil Review No.06 of 2025

6. The present review petition has been filed for review of the order dated 11.07.2024 passed in T.A. No. 24 of 2019.

7. The serious objection has been made on behalf of learned counsel appearing for the respondent/appellant Income Tax that the said order since has been passed on the concession given by the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner/respondent and therefore, after such concession, there cannot be a review of the order dated 11.07.2024 which is being sought for review by filing the instant review petition.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

9. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the said Tax Appeal have also been incorporated in the present review petitions which need to be referred herein as under:

10. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) / respondent herein has moved before this Court in Tax Appeal No.24 of 2019 against the order dated 15.03.2019 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi in I.T.A. No. 108/Ran/2018 for the assessment year 2014-15 preferred by the respondent/review petitioner herein whereby and whereunder, the learned I.T.A.T. has allowed the said appeal and has held that the proviso to Section 2(15) of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 is not applicable to the respondent / review petitioner and has set aside the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) under Section 263 by which the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.

11. The matter was heard by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 11.07.2024.

12. Learned counsel appearing for the Income Tax, the respondent/appellant, has made a submission that the questions which are involved in the appeal has already been decided by Hon’ble Apex Court in the Case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) v. Ahemdabad Urban Development Authority, (2023) 4 SCC 561 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has remitted the matter for fresh consideration as held in Paragraph 286.7.

13. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent / the review petitioner herein, has accepted such submission.

14. Accordingly, vide order dated 11.07.2024 the Division of this Court, in pursuance to such concession, having been given by the learned counsel for the respondent/the review petitioner had disposed of the appeal by remitting the matter to the authority concerned to decide the same afresh in view of the ratio decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) (supra)

15. Review of the aforesaid order dated 11.07.2024 has been sought for in the instant review petition.

16. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts it needs to refer herein the settled connotation of law that once the matter has been decide