CHAIN RAJ NAHAR S/O KAILASH CHAND NAHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Facts

These are a batch of miscellaneous applications filed by various petitioners (assessee) seeking recalling of an order dated 01.09.2025 and restoration of their respective writ petitions for adjudication on merits. The petitioners contend that an amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 2026, necessitates this. The applications are being considered in light of a similar order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court on 30.06.2026, which dismissed the Department's application for recalling its earlier order. The Department's application was dismissed on the grounds that an SLP against the High Court's order was pending before the Supreme Court, and the High Court would not recall its order based on another case's judgment. The Department was advised to move an appropriate application for disposal of the SLPs, and if a similar order was passed by the Supreme Court, the writ petitions would automatically stand revived or revival could be sought.

Held

The High Court, in these miscellaneous applications, disposed of all the applications in terms of the order dated 30.06.2026 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench. The Co-ordinate Bench had dismissed the Department's application for recalling its earlier order. The reasoning was that the Department's application was misconceived as an SLP against the High Court's order was pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Court held that it would not recall its earlier order based on another case's judgment when its own order was under challenge. The Department was advised to move an appropriate application for disposal of the SLPs, and if a similar order was passed by the Supreme Court, the writ petitions would automatically stand revived or revival could be sought. The operative direction was to dismiss the present miscellaneous applications in terms of the aforementioned order, with a concession allowing the applicants to take back their certified copies.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petitions, previously disposed of by an order dated 01.09.2025, should be recalled and restored for adjudication on merits in light of the amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 2026? (Question of law and fact, turning on the impact of the Finance Act, 2026 and procedural fairness). Assessee's Contention: The petitioners argue that the amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 2026, requires their writ petitions to be adjudicated on merits. They seek the recalling of the previous order and restoration of their petitions. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not explicitly record any specific contentions from the revenue in these miscellaneous applications. However, the reference to the Co-ordinate Bench's order dated 30.06.2026 suggests that the revenue had previously sought recalling of an order, which was dismissed. The reasoning in that order implies the revenue's likely stance against recalling the order unless the Supreme Court directs so.