CHAPTER XIV-A — SPECIAL PROVISION FOR AVOIDING REPETITIVE APPEALS
CHAPTER XIV-A — SPECIAL PROVISION FOR AVOIDING REPETITIVE APPEALS
Section 158AA — Procedure When an Identical Question of Law is Pending Before Supreme Court (Revenue's Deferral of Appeal)
Case Laws & Commentary · Income-tax Act, 1961 (as amended by the Finance Act, 2026) · bharattax.co Treatise
Status: On the statute book but spent for fresh cases. Inserted by the Finance Act, 2016 with effect from 1 June 2016 as the Revenue's counterpart to section 158A. Its first proviso bars any fresh direction under it 'on or after the 1st day of April, 2022', because it was superseded by the wider collegium mechanism of section 158AB. It continues to govern directions validly given before that date.
FA 2026: No amendment by the Finance Act, 2026.
A. SECTION COMMENTARY
Section 158AA was the Revenue's answer to the same inefficiency that section 158A addresses for the assessee. Where the Commissioner or Principal Commissioner was of the opinion that a question of law arising from a Commissioner (Appeals) order in the assessee's case for one year was identical with a question already pending before the Supreme Court in the assessee's own case for another year — on an appeal under section 261 or a special leave petition under article 136, against a High Court order in the assessee's favour — the Commissioner could, instead of directing a regular second appeal to the Tribunal, direct the Assessing Officer to apply to the Tribunal stating that the appeal on that question would be filed when the Supreme Court's decision became final.
The deferral was conditional on the assessee's cooperation. Under sub-section (2), the Commissioner could give the direction only if the assessee accepted in writing that the question of law in the other (Supreme Court) case was identical with that in the relevant case; if no such acceptance was received, the Commissioner had to proceed with a normal appeal under section 253. When the Supreme Court eventually decided the lead matter, and if the Commissioner (Appeals) order in the relevant case was not in conformity with that decision, the Commissioner could then direct the Assessing Officer to file the deferred appeal to the Tribunal within sixty days of communication of the apex Court's order.
Two structural limitations made section 158AA narrower than its successor. First, the 'other case' had to be the assessee's own case pending before the Supreme Court — it did not cover an identical question pending in a different assessee's litigation or one pending only before the jurisdictional High Court. Second, it operated only at the Tribunal stage (orders of the Commissioner (Appeals)). The Finance Act, 2022 cured both limitations by enacting section 158AB and, to avoid overlap, closed section 158AA to fresh directions from 1 April 2022 through the first proviso.
Because the provision is now spent for new matters and was, even when live, an internal litigation-management tool that turned on the assessee's written acceptance of identity, it generated no reported judicial construction. The candour rule applies: there is no decided case interpreting section 158AA, and practitioners should read it together with its successor, section 158AB, and the CBDT's instructions on departmental appeals and monetary limits.
B. STATUTORY POSITION (verbatim text)
Reproduced from the local Act (base text to the Finance Act, 2025).
158AA. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where the Commissioner or Principal Commissioner is of the opinion that any question of law arising in the case of an assessee for any assessment year (such case being herein referred to as relevant case) is identical with a question of law arising in his case for another assessment year which is pending before the Supreme Court, in an appeal under section 261 or in a special leave petition under article 136 of the Constitution, against the order of the High Court in favour of the assessee (such case being herein referred to as the other case), he may, instead of directing the Assessing Officer to appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under sub-section (2) or sub-section (2A) of section 253, direct the Assessing Officer to make an application to the Appellate Tribunal in the prescribed form within sixty days from the date of receipt of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) stating that an appeal on the question of law arising in the relevant case may be filed when the decision on the question of law becomes final in the other case: Provided that no such direction shall be given on or after the 1st day of April, 2022.
(2) The Commissioner or Principal Commissioner shall direct the Assessing Officer to make an application under sub-section (1) only if an acceptance is received from the assessee to the effect that the question of law in the other case is identical to that arising in the relevant case; and in case no such acceptance is received, the Commissioner or Principal Commissioner shall proceed in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-section (2) or sub-section (2A) of section 253.
(3) Where the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) referred to in sub-section (1) is not in conformity with the final decision on the question of law in the other case, the Commissioner or Principal Commissioner may direct the Assessing Officer to appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such order and save as otherwise provided in this section all other provisions of Part B of Chapter XX shall apply accordingly.
(4) Every appeal under sub-section (3) shall be filed within sixty days from the date on which the order of the Supreme Court in the other case is communicated to the Commissioner or Principal Commissioner.
C. AUTHORITIES
There is no reported decision construing section 158AA; it was a short-lived internal mechanism, closed to fresh directions from 1 April 2022 and replaced by section 158AB. In candour, the material below is the governing administrative framework and the consistency authorities, not a direct construction of the section.
1. Governing framework and successor provision
Supersession by section 158AB and CBDT litigation-management instructions
Position: Section 158AA was overtaken by section 158AB (Finance Act, 2022) and is closed to fresh directions from 1 April 2022 by its own first proviso. The deferral of departmental appeals is, in current practice, operated through the collegium under section 158AB read with the CBDT's circulars prescribing monetary limits for appeals and the procedure specified by the Board.
Application: For any direction given before 1 April 2022, the section continues to apply on its own terms — the appeal must be filed within sixty days of communication of the Supreme Court's order in the other case, and only where the Commissioner (Appeals) order is not in conformity with that decision.
2. The consistency / non-discrimination doctrine the provision serves
Cited for the rationale of deferring repetitive departmental appeals on a question already pending in the assessee's own case before the apex Court; the Revenue is held to consistency, subject to 'just cause'.
Union of India v. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal (2001) 249 ITR 219 (SC) — consistency in appeals
Court: Supreme Court of India; judgment dated 13 December 2000 (170 CTR 359).
Held: Where the Revenue has accepted the correctness of the law laid down by the High Court in one assessee's case (or for one year) and has not challenged it, it is not open to the Revenue, without just cause, to challenge its correctness in the case of another assessee (or another year) on the same question; to do so would be to discriminate between assessees on an identical point.
Significance: A foundational statement of the consistency/non-discrimination principle that the repetitive-appeals machinery of Chapter XIV-A is designed to serve — an identical question, once accepted or pending, should not be re-fought selectively.
Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT (2004) 266 ITR 99 (SC) — consistency in appeals
Court: Supreme Court of India; judgment dated 17 February 2004 (187 CTR 193 / 135 Taxman 586).
Held: Applying Kaumudini Narayan Dalal, the Court reiterated that if the Revenue has not challenged the correctness of the law laid down by a High Court and has accepted it in the case of one assessee, it is not open to it to challenge its correctness in the case of other assessees, without just cause; the principle operates across assessees and across assessment years on an identical question.
Significance: Reinforces the consistency doctrine underlying Chapter XIV-A: an identical question of law, once settled or pending, should be applied uniformly rather than litigated repeatedly.
C. K. Gangadharan v. CIT (2008) 304 ITR 61 (SC) — the 'just cause' qualification
Court: Supreme Court of India; Larger Bench, judgment dated 21 October 2008 (218 CTR 1 / 172 Taxman 87).
Held: Clarifying Kaumudini Narayan Dalal and Berger Paints, the Court held that the mere fact that in some cases the Revenue has not preferred an appeal does not operate as an absolute bar to its preferring an appeal in another case where there is just cause, or where it is in the public interest, or where an authoritative pronouncement is needed because of divergent views of Tribunals or High Courts. The consistency principle is therefore subject to a 'just cause' qualification.
Significance: Defines the outer limit of the consistency doctrine — the Revenue is held to consistency on an identical question but may depart for just cause. This is precisely the calibration that the section 158AB collegium mechanism institutionalises.
Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC) — cognate (rule of consistency)
Court: Supreme Court of India; judgment dated 16 November 1991.
Held: Although res judicata does not apply to income-tax proceedings, each assessment year being a separate unit, where a fundamental aspect permeating through different assessment years has been found as a fact one way and the parties have allowed that position to be sustained, it is not appropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year on the same facts.
Significance: Cognate authority supplying the policy rationale of the repetitive-appeals scheme — the avoidance of re-agitation of an identical question already settled or pending in the assessee's own matter.
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India (2006) 282 ITR 273 (SC) — cognate (consistency)
Court: Supreme Court of India; judgment dated 2 March 2006.
Held: Res judicata does not apply in tax matters for different assessment years because each year is a unit; but where a question has been decided and there is no change in the facts or the law, the same view should ordinarily be followed. Consistency and certainty, and a strong reason, are paramount before a settled position is reopened.
Significance: Cognate authority on the consistency principle that underlies the machinery for avoiding repetitive appeals.
Compiled for the bharattax.co Treatise on the Income-tax Act, 1961 (as amended by the Finance Act, 2026). Statutory text reproduced from the Income-tax Act, 1961 (text as printed in the local Act, base text amended up to the Finance Act, 2025), with the publisher's footnote apparatus and amendment-marker brackets removed. Finance Act, 2026 changes are flagged in the commentary. Citations are stated as reported. Where a section has not been judicially construed, that is stated candidly and the nearest governing authority is given. This material is for professional reference and is not legal advice.
CHAPTER XIV-A — SPECIAL PROVISION FOR AVOIDING REPETITIVE APPEALS
Section 158AA — Procedure When an Identical Question of Law is Pending Before Supreme Court (Revenue's Deferral of Appeal)
Case Laws & Commentary · Income-tax Act, 1961 (as amended by the Finance Act, 2026) · bharattax.co Treatise
Status: On the statute book but spent for fresh cases. Inserted by the Finance Act, 2016 with effect from 1 June 2016 as the Revenue's counterpart to section 158A. Its first proviso bars any fresh direction under it 'on or after the 1st day of April, 2022', because it was superseded by the wider collegium mechanism of section 158AB. It continues to govern directions validly given before that date.
FA 2026: No amendment by the Finance Act, 2026.
A. SECTION COMMENTARY
Section 158AA was the Revenue's answer to the same inefficiency that section 158A addresses for the assessee. Where the Commissioner or Principal Commissioner was of the opinion that a question of law arising from a Commissioner (Appeals) order in the assessee's case for one year was identical with a question already pending before the Supreme Court in the assessee's own case for another year — on an appeal under section 261 or a special leave petition under article 136, against a High Court order in the assessee's favour — the Commissioner could, instead of directing a regular second appeal to the Tribunal, direct the Assessing Officer to apply to the Tribunal stating that the appeal on that question would be filed when the Supreme Court's decision became final.
The deferral was conditional on the assessee's cooperation. Under sub-section (2), the Commissioner could give the direction only if the assessee accepted in writing that the question of law in the other (Supreme Court) case was identical with that in the relevant case; if no such acceptance was received, the Commissioner had to proceed with a normal appeal under section 253. When the Supreme Court eventually decided the lead matter, and if the Commissioner (Appeals) order in the relevant case was not in conformity with that decision, the Commissioner could then direct the Assessing Officer to file the deferred appeal to the Tribunal within sixty days of communication of the apex Court's order.
Two structural limitations made section 158AA narrower than its successor. First, the 'other case' had to be the assessee's own case pending before the Supreme Court — it did not cover an identical question pending in a different assessee's litigation or one pending only before the jurisdictional High Court. Second, it operated only at the Tribunal stage (orders of the Commissioner (Appeals)). The Finance Act, 2022 cured both limitations by enacting section 158AB and, to avoid overlap, closed section 158AA to fresh directions from 1 April 2022 through the first proviso.
Because the provision is now spent for new matters and was, even when live, an internal litigation-management tool that turned on the assessee's written acceptance of identity, it generated no reported judicial construction. The candour rule applies: there is no decided case interpreting section 158AA, and practitioners should read it together with its successor, section 158AB, and the CBDT's instructions on departmental appeals and monetary limits.
B. STATUTORY POSITION (verbatim text)
Reproduced from the local Act (base text to the Finance Act, 2025).
158AA. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where the Commissioner or Principal Commissioner is of the opinion that any question of law arising in the case of an assessee for any assessment year (such case being herein referred to as relevant case) is identical with a question of law arising in his case for another assessment year which is pending before the Supreme Court, in an appeal under section 261 or in a special leave petition under article 136 of the Constitution, against the order of the High Court in favour of the assessee (such case being herein referred to as the other case), he may, instead of directing the Assessing Officer to appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under sub-section (2) or sub-section (2A) of section 253, direct the Assessing Officer to make an application to the Appellate Tribunal in the prescribed form within sixty days from the date of receipt of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) stating that an appeal on the question of law arising in the relevant case may be filed when the decision on the question of law becomes final in the other case: Provided that no such direction shall be given on or after the 1st day of April, 2022.
(2) The Commissioner or Principal Commissioner shall direct the Assessing Officer to make an application under sub-section (1) only if an acceptance is received from the assessee to the effect that the question of law in the other case is identical to that arising in the relevant case; and in case no such acceptance is received, the Commissioner or Principal Commissioner shall proceed in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-section (2) or sub-section (2A) of section 253.
(3) Where the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) referred to in sub-section (1) is not in conformity with the final decision on the question of law in the other case, the Commissioner or Principal Commissioner may direct the Assessing Officer to appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such order and save as otherwise provided in this section all other provisions of Part B of Chapter XX shall apply accordingly.
(4) Every appeal under sub-section (3) shall be filed within sixty days from the date on which the order of the Supreme Court in the other case is communicated to the Commissioner or Principal Commissioner.
C. AUTHORITIES
There is no reported decision construing section 158AA; it was a short-lived internal mechanism, closed to fresh directions from 1 April 2022 and replaced by section 158AB. In candour, the material below is the governing administrative framework and the consistency authorities, not a direct construction of the section.
1. Governing framework and successor provision
Supersession by section 158AB and CBDT litigation-management instructions
Position: Section 158AA was overtaken by section 158AB (Finance Act, 2022) and is closed to fresh directions from 1 April 2022 by its own first proviso. The deferral of departmental appeals is, in current practice, operated through the collegium under section 158AB read with the CBDT's circulars prescribing monetary limits for appeals and the procedure specified by the Board.
Application: For any direction given before 1 April 2022, the section continues to apply on its own terms — the appeal must be filed within sixty days of communication of the Supreme Court's order in the other case, and only where the Commissioner (Appeals) order is not in conformity with that decision.
2. The consistency / non-discrimination doctrine the provision serves
Cited for the rationale of deferring repetitive departmental appeals on a question already pending in the assessee's own case before the apex Court; the Revenue is held to consistency, subject to 'just cause'.
Union of India v. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal (2001) 249 ITR 219 (SC) — consistency in appeals
Court: Supreme Court of India; judgment dated 13 December 2000 (170 CTR 359).
Held: Where the Revenue has accepted the correctness of the law laid down by the High Court in one assessee's case (or for one year) and has not challenged it, it is not open to the Revenue, without just cause, to challenge its correctness in the case of another assessee (or another year) on the same question; to do so would be to discriminate between assessees on an identical point.
Significance: A foundational statement of the consistency/non-discrimination principle that the repetitive-appeals machinery of Chapter XIV-A is designed to serve — an identical question, once accepted or pending, should not be re-fought selectively.
Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT (2004) 266 ITR 99 (SC) — consistency in appeals
Court: Supreme Court of India; judgment dated 17 February 2004 (187 CTR 193 / 135 Taxman 586).
Held: Applying Kaumudini Narayan Dalal, the Court reiterated that if the Revenue has not challenged the correctness of the law laid down by a High Court and has accepted it in the case of one assessee, it is not open to it to challenge its correctness in the case of other assessees, without just cause; the principle operates across assessees and across assessment years on an identical question.
Significance: Reinforces the consistency doctrine underlying Chapter XIV-A: an identical question of law, once settled or pending, should be applied uniformly rather than litigated repeatedly.
C. K. Gangadharan v. CIT (2008) 304 ITR 61 (SC) — the 'just cause' qualification
Court: Supreme Court of India; Larger Bench, judgment dated 21 October 2008 (218 CTR 1 / 172 Taxman 87).
Held: Clarifying Kaumudini Narayan Dalal and Berger Paints, the Court held that the mere fact that in some cases the Revenue has not preferred an appeal does not operate as an absolute bar to its preferring an appeal in another case where there is just cause, or where it is in the public interest, or where an authoritative pronouncement is needed because of divergent views of Tribunals or High Courts. The consistency principle is therefore subject to a 'just cause' qualification.
Significance: Defines the outer limit of the consistency doctrine — the Revenue is held to consistency on an identical question but may depart for just cause. This is precisely the calibration that the section 158AB collegium mechanism institutionalises.
Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC) — cognate (rule of consistency)
Court: Supreme Court of India; judgment dated 16 November 1991.
Held: Although res judicata does not apply to income-tax proceedings, each assessment year being a separate unit, where a fundamental aspect permeating through different assessment years has been found as a fact one way and the parties have allowed that position to be sustained, it is not appropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year on the same facts.
Significance: Cognate authority supplying the policy rationale of the repetitive-appeals scheme — the avoidance of re-agitation of an identical question already settled or pending in the assessee's own matter.
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India (2006) 282 ITR 273 (SC) — cognate (consistency)
Court: Supreme Court of India; judgment dated 2 March 2006.
Held: Res judicata does not apply in tax matters for different assessment years because each year is a unit; but where a question has been decided and there is no change in the facts or the law, the same view should ordinarily be followed. Consistency and certainty, and a strong reason, are paramount before a settled position is reopened.
Significance: Cognate authority on the consistency principle that underlies the machinery for avoiding repetitive appeals.
Compiled for the bharattax.co Treatise on the Income-tax Act, 1961 (as amended by the Finance Act, 2026). Statutory text reproduced from the Income-tax Act, 1961 (text as printed in the local Act, base text amended up to the Finance Act, 2025), with the publisher's footnote apparatus and amendment-marker brackets removed. Finance Act, 2026 changes are flagged in the commentary. Citations are stated as reported. Where a section has not been judicially construed, that is stated candidly and the nearest governing authority is given. This material is for professional reference and is not legal advice.