Section 248 maintainability turns on pre-amendment law, payer liability, and fresh factual adjudication before rejection.

Section 248 maintainability depended on whether the pre-amendment or post-amendment version of the provision applied to the remittances, and the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not examined that foundational question or the underlying facts. If the pre-amendment law governed, the appeals could not be rejected on the basis adopted by the CIT(A), while under the amended provision the issue whether tax under the agreement or arrangement was borne by the payer also required examination. As these matters had not been properly adjudicated, the issue was remitted to the CIT(A) for fresh decision in accordance with law after hearing the parties.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeals under section 248 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were maintainable and whether the matter required fresh adjudication in view of the amendment to section 248 with effect from 1-6-2007.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not examined whether the post-amendment version of section 248 applied to the facts and had also not verified the underlying facts. If the pre-amendment law governed the remittances, the appeals could not have been rejected on the ground adopted by the CIT(A), in view of the coordinate Bench view in Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. If the amended provision applied, the further question whether tax under the agreement or arrangement was to be borne by the payer also required examination. As these foundational aspects had not been adjudicated, the matter could not be finally decided at that stage.

Conclusion: The issue was set aside to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing.

---