IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 11448 OF 2024 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC CIRCLE 3(1)(1) BMTC COMPLEX, KORMANGALA, BANGALORE.

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

AND:

M/S. ILKON LABELS PVT. LTD., NO.30, CHICAGO AVENUE, 37/2, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU – 52, (BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR)

REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. R. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE)

Di gitally signed by THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE MADHURI S CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER Location : DATED ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE High Court of TRIBUNAL BENCH B BANGALORE DATED 23.06.2023 IN MP NO.

Karnataka

12/BAN/2023 IN ITA NO. 9/BANG/2022 IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:-

“(A) Set aside order dated order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench ‘B’ Bangalore dated 23.06.2023 in M.P.No.142/Bang/2023 in ITA No.49/Bang/2022 is produced as Annexure-A.

(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.

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

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

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that this petition is directly and squarely covered by the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income tax Vs. M/s. OT Privacy Software Pvt. LTD., - W.P.No.12837/2024 dated 15.09.2025, which reads as under:

“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 su