Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010005802025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Review.Pet./11/2025 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (BP) AND ORS. GUWAHATI, O/O DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (BP) GUWAHATI, AAYKAR BHAWAN, CHRISTIAN BASTI G.S. ROAD, GUWAHATI-781005 2: THE JIONT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (BPU) GUWAHATI O/O DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (BP) GUWAHATI AAYKAR BHAWAN CHRISTIAN BASTI G.S. ROAD GUWAHATI-781005 3: THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY APPOINTED UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE PROHIBITION OF BENAMI PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS ACT 1988 WITH ITS OFFICE AT 10-B MIDDLETON ROW 1ST FLOOR INCOME TAX BUILDING KOLKATA 70007 VERSUS GANESH CHANDRA DAS AND ANR S/O LT. DADHIRAM DAS, R/O MEGHALI PATH PUB SARANIA, P.O. AND P.S. CHANDMARI, GUWAHATI-781003 2:BHAGYA KALITA S/O LATE BHARAT KALITA R/O PIYOLI PHUKAN ROAD REHABARI GUWAHATI ASSAM-78100 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S C KEYAL, K JAIN,MS. N KAKATI Page No.# 2/3 Advocate for the Respondent : A NEOG (R-1,2), MR. A SANDILYA(R-1,2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 18.02.2026 Heard Shri S.C. Keyal, learned Sr. Standing Counsel, CBDT (Income Tax) for the applicant. Also heard Shri A. Sandilya, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. The instant petition has been filed under Order X of the Gauhati High Court Rules, 2015 read with Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C) for review of the common judgment and order dated 16.12.2022 passed in a bunch of writ petition, including WP(C)/4390/2022. The primary ground of seeking review was on the basis of an order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, dated 18.10.2024, passed in Review Petition (C) No. 359/2023 in Civil Appeal No.5783/2022 (Union of India & Anr. Vs. M/S Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd.). It, however, transpires that subsequent to the foresaid decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed another order dated 04.11.2025 in SLP(C) No. 8229/2024 by holding that the review would not be maintainable. Shri Keyal, learned Sr. Standing Counsel for the applicant has very fairly submitted that in the meantime, the Division Bench of this Court by following the aforesaid principle has held that a review would not be maintainable. Shri Sandilya, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 has submitted that since the subsequent order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down the principle, the present petition would not be maintainable and is liable Page No.# 3/3 to be dismissed. At this stage, Shri Keyal, learned Sr. Standing Counsel for the applicant has informed this Court that apart from the order dated 04.11.2025, another order on the similar lines was passed earlier on 12.02.2025 in Review Petition (C) No. 341 of 2025 in SLP(C) Diary No. 49828/2023. Considering the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the subsequent orders dated 12.02.2025 and 04.11.2025, this Court is of the view that the present application for review would not be maintainable and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant