IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 26741 OF 2023 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

1. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 3, 5^TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 6^TH BLOCK, 80 FEE ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 095

2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), NO. 21/16, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, RESIDENCY ROAD, NAZARBAD, MYSURU - 570 010 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed CHANDRAMOULI, by CHANDANA NO 748/3, GANGA ENGINEERING WORKS B M HUNSUR ROAD YELWAL, Location: High MYSURU - 571 130 Court of Karnataka KARNATAKA …RESPONDENT (VIDE ORDER DATED 10.10.2025, NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS DISPENSED WITH)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 26.05.2023 BEARING M.P. NO. 98/BANG/2023 (IN ITA NO. 3/BANG/2022) PASSED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

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

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

"a. Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated

26.05.2023 bearing M.P.No.98/Bang/2023 (in ITA No.3/Bang/2022) passed by the second respondent produced as Annexure-A.

b. Issue such other Writ or directions deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the present case in the interest of justice and equity."

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

3. Though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims, the issue in controversy between the parties is directly and squarely covered by the judgment of the 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, wherein it was held 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 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