IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 12837 OF 2024 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC, BMTC COMPLEX KORMANGALA BENGALURU – 560 031.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI E.I.SANMATHI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

M/S. OT PRIVACY SOFTWARE PVT. LTD., NO.9/3, NITESH BROADWAY

4-A-3^RD FLOOR, M.G.ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001.

…RESPONDENT Digitally signed by NAGAVENI THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF Location: High THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE ORDER Court of DTD ORDER PASSED BY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, C Karnataka BENCH, BANGALORE DTD 16.06.2023 IN MP NO. 119/BANG/2023 IN ITA NO. 755/BANG/2021 (ANNEXURE-A) IS PRODUCED FOR A.Y.2019-20; 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. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner - Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Department is at the doors of this Court calling in question an order dated 16.06.2023, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ Bench, Bengaluru (‘the Tribunal’ for short) rejecting Miscellaneous Petition No.119/Bang/2023, in ITA.No.755/Bang/2021 for the assessment year 2019-20. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the issue in the lis stands answered by this Court in the case of DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. M/S BRUSH TECH INDIA in W.P.No.27089/2023, disposed on 30.07.2025.

3. This Court in the aforesaid writ petition, has held as follows:

“9. The afore-narrated facts and link in the chain of events are all a matter of record. The only issue that calls for consideration is, whether a subsequent change in law would take away the adjudication that has already undergone to follow. The revenue seeks review of the order of the Tribunal in the light of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in CHECKMATE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, [(2023) 6 SCC 451]. This is an admitted fact. Whether subsequent law being laid down become the subject matter of review of already concluded proceeding is necessary to be noticed. The Apex court in the case of SANJAY KUMAR AGARWAL v. STATE TAX OFFICER, [(2024) 2 SCC 362], has held as follows:

“15. It is very pertinent to note that recently the Constitution Bench in Beghar Foundation v. K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar Review-5 J.) [Beghar Foundation v. K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar Review-5 J.) (2021) 3 SCC 1] , held that even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of coordinate Bench or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.

… … …

16.8. Even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.”

(Emphasis supplied)

The Apex Court holds that in BEGHAR FOUNDATION, a five Judge Bench holds that even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of a Coordinate Bench or a larger Bench cannot by itself be regarded as a ground for review. The Apex Court was following the judgment of the Constitution Bench in BEGHAR FOUNDATION v. JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY, [(2021) 3 SCC 1], wherein the Apex Court holds as follows:

“2. The present review petitions have been filed against the final judgment and order dated 26-9-2018 [K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5 J.) v. Union of India, (2019) 1 SCC 1]. 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 [K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5 J.) v. Union of India, (2019) 1 SCC 1] 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.”

(Emphasis supplied)

The Tribunal while decidi