My benami matter was decided on the strength of Ganpati Dealcom and became final. The Supreme Court has now recalled that judgment. Can the Department reopen my case by review?
On this order, no. A two-Judge Bench declined to act on the clause in the 18 October 2024 recall order that gave aggrieved parties liberty to seek review of decisions founded on Ganpati Dealcom. It applied the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC — that reversal or modification of a proposition of law by a later decision is not a ground of review — and dismissed the Union's review petition.
Decided by the Supreme Court (B.V. Nagarathna J and Augustine George Masih J) on 2025-11-04, reported as Diary No. 41584/2025 in SLP(C) No. 8229/2024; 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1107. It bears on section Order XLVII r.1 CPC of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Appeals and How Tax Law Is Read matters.
The recall of the 2022 Ganpati Dealcom judgment carried a sentence inviting review of everything decided on its strength. This order is the Supreme Court's own refusal to give that sentence effect in a matter before it, and it is the first thing to put on the record when the Department applies to revive a closed benami proceeding.
Binding on every court and authority in India.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The Union sought review of an order of the Supreme Court dated 5 April 2024 in SLP(C) No. 8229/2024. Paragraph 1 of the order condones delay. The Union's case rested on the direction in the three-Judge Bench order in Union of India v M/s Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. (Review Petition (C) No. 359/2023 in Civil Appeal No. 5783/2022) that where other proceedings had been disposed of by relying on the 2022 Ganpati Dealcom judgment, liberty was granted to the aggrieved party to seek a review.
The review petition was dismissed (paras 4 and 5), and pending applications were disposed of (para 6). The Bench recorded its inability to agree with the observation in Ganpati Dealcom granting liberty to seek review (para 2), and declined to grant that liberty in the case before it (para 4).
The Bench relied on Government of NCT of Delhi v K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd, (2024) 7 SCC 315, decided 17 May 2024, which applied the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC: the fact that the decision on a question of law on which a judgment is based has been reversed or modified by a subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case shall not be a ground for review of that judgment (para 3). It recorded that the Bench which decided Ganpati Dealcom had failed to notice K.L. Rathi Steels, a judgment of co-equal strength and prior in time (para 4). Following K.L. Rathi Steels, it declined to grant liberty to seek review (para 4).
a three-Judge Bench of this Court has failed to notice the judgment
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppOn this order, no. A two-Judge Bench declined to act on the clause in the 18 October 2024 recall order that gave aggrieved parties liberty to seek review of decisions founded on Ganpati Dealcom. It applied the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC — that reversal or modification of a proposition of law by a later decision is not a ground of review — and dismissed the Union's review petition. This was decided by the Supreme Court (B.V. Nagarathna J and Augustine George Masih J) and bears on section Order XLVII r.1 CPC of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as Diary No. 41584/2025 in SLP(C) No. 8229/2024; 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1107. The recall of the 2022 Ganpati Dealcom judgment carried a sentence inviting review of everything decided on its strength. This order is the Supreme Court's own refusal to give that sentence effect in a matter before it, and it is the first thing to put on the record when the Department applies to revive a closed benami proceeding. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Check whether the order you rely on had itself reserved liberty to the Department to seek review if Ganpati Dealcom were recalled — if it did, this order will not save you, and the Punjab and Haryana and Rajasthan decisions on the point go the other way.
The Union sought review of an order of the Supreme Court dated 5 April 2024 in SLP(C) No. 8229/2024. Paragraph 1 of the order condones delay. The Union's case rested on the direction in the three-Judge Bench order in Union of India v M/s Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. (Review Petition (C) No. 359/2023 in Civil Appeal No. 5783/2022) that where other proceedings had been disposed of by relying on the 2022 Ganpati Dealcom judgment, liberty was granted to the aggrieved party to seek a review. The matter was decided on 2025-11-04 by the Supreme Court (B.V. Nagarathna J and Augustine George Masih J). On those facts the Supreme Court held as follows. The review petition was dismissed (paras 4 and 5), and pending applications were disposed of (para 6). The Bench recorded its inability to agree with the observation in Ganpati Dealcom granting liberty to seek review (para 2), and declined to grant that liberty in the case before it (para 4).
The Bench relied on Government of NCT of Delhi v K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd, (2024) 7 SCC 315, decided 17 May 2024, which applied the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC: the fact that the decision on a question of law on which a judgment is based has been reversed or modified by a subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case shall not be a ground for review of that judgment (para 3). It recorded that the Bench which decided Ganpati Dealcom had failed to notice K.L. Rathi Steels, a judgment of co-equal strength and prior in time (para 4). Following K.L. Rathi Steels, it declined to grant liberty to seek review (para 4). In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "a three-Judge Bench of this Court has failed to notice the judgment" The decision followed or applied Government of NCT of Delhi v K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd, (2024) 7 SCC 315 — followed; Union of India v M/s Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., Review Petition (C) No. 359/2023 in Civil Appeal No. 5783/2022 — disagreed with, to the extent of the liberty to seek review.
It was decided by the Supreme Court on 2025-11-04 and is reported as Diary No. 41584/2025 in SLP(C) No. 8229/2024; 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1107. Binding on every court and authority in India. A Supreme Court decision binds every assessing officer, every Commissioner (Appeals), every bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and every High Court in India. An officer who declines to follow it is acting contrary to law, and that refusal is itself a ground of appeal. On section Order XLVII r.1 CPC, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. The review petition was dismissed (paras 4 and 5), and pending applications were disposed of (para 6). The Bench recorded its inability to agree with the observation in Ganpati Dealcom granting liberty to seek review (para 2), and declined to grant that liberty in the case before it (para 4). It arises in Appeals and How Tax Law Is Read matters, on section Order XLVII r.1 CPC of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by B.V. Nagarathna J and Augustine George Masih J. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Where no such liberty was reserved, plead the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and this order: a later change in the law is not a ground of review. Cite Government of NCT of Delhi v K.L. Rathi Steels, on which this order turns, as the co-equal and earlier decision. Take limitation on the review application as a separate ground; nothing in this order extends time.
Searched for later treatment; none was found. That is not the same as a source affirming it. No decision applying, affirming, doubting or overruling this order was located. It was cited to the Rajasthan High Court in Munnidevi Sitani v Benami Prohibition Unit (2), decided 20 May 2026, where counsel relied on it to argue that the Appellate Tribunal's review orders should not be acted on; the Court disposed of those appeals on maintainability under Order XLVII Rule 7 CPC and did not decide the point. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Manik Seth v Initiating Officer, decided 26 August 2026, upheld an Appellate Tribunal review granted on the strength of the same liberty clause, but on the ground that the Tribunal's own earlier order had reserved that liberty; it does not refer to this order. The two lines therefore sit alongside each other rather than in direct conflict, and neither has been tested higher. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The order itself contains no reference to benami, to the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, to any Appellate Tribunal or to any High Court decision below. Its connection with benami practice is that the liberty clause it declines to act on is the clause in the Ganpati Dealcom recall order of 18 October 2024, and it is on that footing that it was cited to the Rajasthan High Court in Munnidevi Sitani. What the underlying matter in SLP(C) No. 8229/2024 concerned could not be established from the document; the order records only that the impugned judgment is dated 5 April 2024. The Rajasthan High Court records the review petition number as 41854/2025; the order itself carries Diary No. 41584/2025, and the digits appear to have been transposed in the report of counsel's submission. The order is short — six paragraphs — and was read in full. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The review petition was dismissed (paras 4 and 5), and pending applications were disposed of (para 6). The Bench recorded its inability to agree with the observation in Ganpati Dealcom granting liberty to seek review (para 2), and declined to grant that liberty in the case before it (para 4).
TaxSphere, “Union of India v Virendra Amrutbhai Patel”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/uoi-v-virendra-amrutbhai-patel-review-after-ganpati-recall/ (validity last checked 2026-09-16)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
The department's SLP against a High Court judgment in my favour was dismissed. Is that judgment now a Supreme Court decision?
The Appellate Tribunal allowed my benami appeal years ago. After the Ganpati Dealcom recall it has reopened the matter on the Department's review. Can it do that?
