Section 376 Procedure where an identical question of law is pending before High Courts or Supreme Court

Income-tax Act, 2025

At a Glance

The document considered is Clause 376 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version). It prescribes a procedure to avoid repetitive appeals where an identical question of law in favour of an assessee is pending before a High Court or the Supreme Court. It matters to taxpayers, the Department and appellate authorities (Assessing Officers, Principal Commissioners/Commissioners, Appellate Tribunal and High Courts/Supreme Court). Effective date: Not stated in the document.

Background & Scope

Statutory hooks: Clause 376 (Bill) sets out special provisions to avoid repetitive appeals, interacting with sections 362, 365 and 367 of the Bill (corresponding appellate provisions). The clause addresses situations where a question of law in the relevant case is identical to a question pending in another case and that question is the subject of appellate proceedings before a High Court or the Supreme Court (including Special Leave Petitions). Definitions: The clause defines "relevant case" (an assessee's case for any tax year) and "other case" (the case in which the identical question is pending), and provides a definition of "collegium" as two or more Chief Commissioners or Principal Commissioners or Commissioners, as specified by the Board. No other definitional provisions are provided.

Statutory Provision Mode

Text & Scope

The provision establishes a departmental procedure where a "collegium" forms an opinion that a question of law arising in a taxpayer's case (the "relevant case") is identical to a question of law arising in another case (either another tax year of the same assessee or any other assessee). If that identical question is pending before the jurisdictional High Court (u/s 365) or the Supreme Court (in an appeal u/s 367 or in a Special Leave Petition under article 136) against an order in favour of the taxpayer in the other case, the collegium may direct that no departmental appeal be filed at that stage to the Appellate Tribunal u/s 362(2) or to the High Court u/s 365(2) against the order of the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal in the relevant case.

The Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, on receipt of collegium communication, must direct the Assessing Officer to make an application to the Appellate Tribunal or the jurisdictional High Court, in such form as prescribed, stating that an appeal on the question of law may be filed when the decision in the other case becomes final. That application must be filed within 120 days from the date of receipt of the order from the lower appellate authorities. If the assessee accepts identity of questions, the Assessing Officer is to make the application; if no acceptance is received, the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner shall proceed as per section 362(2) or 365(2)(b).

If the earlier favourable order (to the assessee in the other case) is not in conformity with the final decision in the other case when that final decision arrives, the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner may direct an appeal; departmental appeals under sub-section (5) must be filed within 60 days to the Appellate Tribunal or 120 days to the High Court from the date on which the higher court's order in the other case is communicated to the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner, following Board procedure. The section defines "collegium" as comprising two or more Chief Commissioners or Principal Commissioners or Commissioners, as specified by the Board.

Interpretation

The provision is procedural and focused on coordinating departmental appellate litigation in the face of identical legal questions. The text indicates an intent to avoid repetitive appeals and inconsistent decisions by deferring institutional appeals until a controlling higher-court decision is available. The mechanism is administrative - the collegium's opinion triggers restraint from immediate appeal and mandates an application to preserve the right to appeal later. The provision confers discretion on the collegium and on the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner to withhold or pursue appeals depending on assessments of identity and the assessee's acceptance; the text contemplates a recordable application to record a reservation of departmental appeal rights pending finalisation of the other case.

Legislative intent beyond this procedural aim is Not stated in the document.

Exceptions/Provisos

No express exceptions or provisos are supplied beyond the procedural sequenced steps. The section contains conditional paths:

• If the assessee accepts identity, the Assessing Officer files the application under subsection (2).
• If the assessee does not accept identity, the department proceeds with appeal under the usual appeal provisions (section 362(2) or section 365(2)(b)).

No other carve-outs, monetary thresholds, or special categories are specified. Not stated in the document: any test or standard for determining "identity" of questions beyond the plain wording "is identical."

Illustrations

• Example 1: Taxpayer A receives an order in favour of the taxpayer from the Commissioner (Appeals) on an issue of classification of income. The department concludes that the same question arises in another taxpayer B's case and that B's case is pending before the High Court u/s 365. The collegium may direct that no departmental appeal be filed in A's case at that stage; the Assessing Officer may be directed to file the prescribed application to preserve the right to appeal when the higher-court decision becomes final.
• Example 2: An assessee declines to accept that the question in the other case is identical. The Principal Commissioner/Commissioner must then proceed to file the appeal u/s 362(2) or section 365(2)(b) notwithstanding the collegium communication.

Interplay

The section cross-refers to procedural appeal provisions - section 362(2), section 365(2), section 362(3) and section 365(2)(a) - and contemplates filings "as prescribed" and "as per the procedure specified by the Board." The document does not include the text of those sections or the Board's procedures; it presupposes their operation. Not stated in the document: any specific Rules/Gazette notification or form number; timelines for Board notification; whether the application under subsection (2) creates any stay of limitation or substantive protection beyond a record of intent to file departmental appeal later.

Differences Between Section 376 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 and Clause 376 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version)

• Scope of proceedings referenced: The Act (Document 1) expands the list of higher court proceedings in which an identical question of law may be "pending" to include specific provisions of the earlier Income-tax Act, 1961 - namely appeals u/s 260A, appeals u/s 261, references u/s 256 - in addition to the corresponding provisions in the new Act (sections 365 and 367). The Bill (Document 2) refers only to pendency "before the jurisdictional High Court u/s 365 or the Supreme Court in an appeal u/s 367 or in a Special Leave Petition under article 136," without explicit cross-reference to corresponding provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
• Additional enumerated procedural loci: The Act explicitly mentions "a reference u/s 256 of Income-tax Act, 1961 before the Jurisdictional High Court or in a reference before the Supreme Court u/s 261 of Income-tax Act, 1961," thereby capturing reference proceedings under the earlier statute; the Bill does not expressly include references under the 1961 Act.
• Wording on prescribed form: The Bill uses the phrase "in such form as prescribed," while the Act uses "in such form as may be prescribed." This is a minor drafting variation, but the Act's formulation is the more conventional legislative phrasing.
• Time-limit phrasing for appeals under sub-section (5): The Bill states "Every appeal under sub-section (5) shall be filed within sixty days to the Appellate Tribunal or one hundred and twenty days to the High Court, ... as per the procedure specified by the Board." The Act amplifies the phrasing slightly: "Every appeal under sub-section (5) shall be filed within a period of sixty days to the Appellate Tribunal or one hundred and twenty days to the High Court, from the date on which the order ... is communicated ... as per the procedure specified by the Board in this behalf." The Act thus expressly ties the limitation periods to the communication date to the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner and adds "in this behalf."
• Minor drafting and punctuation differences: The Act features slightly more elaborate cross-references to earlier statute sections (Income-tax Act, 1961) and inserts a formal definition of "collegium" identical in substance but with fully expanded sentence punctuation and placement.

Practical impact of each change

• Expanded scope to cover proceedings under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (appeals and references): Practical effect - broader administrative coverage: the Act enables the collegium and departmental officers to suspend appeals in current cases where identical legal questions are pending under legacy proceedings (appeals or references) arising under the Income-tax Act, 1961. This reduces risk of inconsistent departmental litigation and avoids duplication across regimes (legacy and reformed).
• Explicit tie of limitation periods to communication date (Act): Practical effect - clearer trigger for limitation: by expressly linking the start of the 60/120-day filing windows to the date on which the higher court's order in the "other case" is communicated to the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner, the Act reduces potential contention about the commencement of limitation for departmental appeals under sub-section (5).
• More conventional drafting for prescription of form ("may be prescribed"): Practical effect - procedural clarity and rulemaking flexibility: the Act's phrasing conforms to standard subordinate legislation language and may signal the Board's retained regulatory flexibility to prescribe form and procedure.
• Administrative consequence: Taken together, the Act's changes strengthen a centralized mechanism to avoid repetitive departmental appeals across tax years and across assessees, and to coordinate litigation with pending higher-court rulings under both the new Act and the legacy statute.

Practical Implications

• Compliance and risk areas: Departments and assessees must monitor collegium communications and the status of higher-court proceedings identified as "other cases." Where the assessee accepts identity, the department will be required to file the prescribed application within 120 days; failure to do so may risk loss of the opportunity to appeal later (procedure Not stated in the document). Departments must therefore document the collegium's opinion and timelines carefully.
• Record-keeping/evidence points: The text implies the need to preserve contemporaneous records - collegium communications, assessee's response (acceptance or refusal), the application filed under subsection (2), and the communication date of higher-court orders to Principal Commissioners/Commissioners. Not stated in the document: the precise form of evidence required to demonstrate "identity" or the content of the prescribed form.

Key Takeaways

• Clause 376 establishes an administrative mechanism to avoid repetitive departmental appeals where identical legal questions are pending before higher courts.
• The collegium's opinion can cause the department to refrain from immediate appeal and instead file a preservation application to appeal later when the higher-court decision is final.
• Assessee acceptance of identity funnels the matter into an application process; lack of acceptance requires departmental appeal to proceed.
• The provision prescribes strict filing windows for the preservation application (120 days) and for subsequent departmental appeals (60/120 days), tied to specified triggers.
• Some procedural specifics - the prescribed form, Board procedure, and the precise consequences of failing to file the preservation application - are delegated and Not stated in the document.

---

Full Text:

Section 376 Procedure where an identical question of law is pending before High Courts or Supreme Court

Identical question procedure: deferral and preservation of departmental appeals pending a controlling higher court decision. The provision creates an administrative mechanism where a Board specified collegium may determine that an identical question of law is pending in another case before a High Court or the Supreme Court and, on that basis, direct restraint from immediate departmental appeal while requiring a prescribed application to preserve the right to appeal later; if the assessee accepts identity the Assessing Officer files the application, otherwise the department proceeds with ordinary appeals, and subsequent appeals may be filed if the higher court decision does not sustain the earlier favourable order.