Sec 264 – Revision – Binding precedent – Authority refusing to follow Special Bench decision of the ITAT- judicial discipline ought to be maintained and cannot be deviated from on the ground that the order passed by the superior authority is “not acceptable” to the department.

23. Samir N. Bhojwani vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Ors.

[WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 37709 OF 2025 DATE: JANUARY 6, 2026]

Sec 264 - Revision – Binding precedent - Authority refusing to follow Special Bench decision of the ITAT- judicial discipline ought to be maintained and cannot be deviated from on the ground that the order passed by the superior authority is “not acceptable” to the department.

The Petitioner challenges the order passed by Respondent No.1 (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax) under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The main grievance of the Petitioner is that the impugned order refuses to follow the decision of the Special Bench of the ITAT in the case of SKF India Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [2024] 168 taxmann.com 328 (Mumbai- Trib.) (SB).

The reasons given by the 1st Respondent for not following the decision of the Special Bench [in SKF (India)] is that the department has not accepted this decision of the ITAT Mumbai and the issue is being contested before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. Thus, there was no finality on the issue of tax at the rate u/s 112 of the Act for capital gain u/s 50 of the Act and the decision of Special Bench cannot be equated in the nature of decla