CHAPTER XIV-A — SPECIAL PROVISION FOR AVOIDING REPETITIVE APPEALS
CHAPTER XIV-A — SPECIAL PROVISION FOR AVOIDING REPETITIVE APPEALS
Section 158AB — Procedure Where an Identical Question of Law is Pending Before High Courts or Supreme Court (Collegium Deferral of Appeals)
Case Laws & Commentary · Income-tax Act, 1961 (as amended by the Finance Act, 2026) · bharattax.co Treatise
Status: Live and operative. Inserted by the Finance Act, 2022 with effect from 1 April 2022. It is the current, and widest, mechanism for avoiding repetitive departmental appeals: a 'collegium' of senior officers may decide not to file an appeal, at that stage, where an identical question of law is pending before the jurisdictional High Court (section 260A) or the Supreme Court (section 261 / article 136), in the assessee's own case or in any other assessee's case.
FA 2026: No amendment by the Finance Act, 2026.
A. SECTION COMMENTARY
Section 158AB is the centrepiece of Chapter XIV-A in its present form. It enlarges the deferral idea of sections 158A and 158AA in two crucial ways. First, the identical question need only be pending before the jurisdictional High Court or the Supreme Court — it need not have reached the apex Court. Second, and more importantly, the lead 'other case' need not be the assessee's own; it may be a question pending in the case of any other assessee. The provision thus tackles systemic, recurring questions across taxpayers, not merely year-to-year repetition within one assessee's file.
The decision to defer is entrusted to a 'collegium', defined by the Explanation as a body of two or more Chief Commissioners or Principal Commissioners or Commissioners specified by the Board. Where the collegium is of the opinion that a question of law in the relevant case is identical with one pending before the jurisdictional High Court or the Supreme Court — against an order of the Tribunal or High Court in favour of the assessee — it may decide and inform the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner not to file an appeal, at this stage, against the order of the Joint Commissioner (Appeals)/Commissioner (Appeals)/Tribunal in the relevant case.
On receiving that communication, the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner must, notwithstanding the normal appeal provisions, direct the Assessing Officer to make an application — in the prescribed form (Form No. 8A) and within one hundred and twenty days of receipt of the appellate order — to the Tribunal or the jurisdictional High Court, stating that an appeal on the question may be filed when the decision in the other case becomes final. As with section 158AA, the application route requires the assessee's written acceptance of identity (sub-section (3)); without it, the Department proceeds with the normal appeal. When the lead matter is finally decided, if the appellate order in the relevant case is not in conformity, the Department may file the deferred appeal — within sixty days to the Tribunal or one hundred and twenty days to the High Court — in accordance with the procedure specified by the Board (sub-sections (4) and (5)).
The provision is, by design, a litigation-management tool and is read with the CBDT's operating instructions: the Board's Order dated 28 September 2022 specifying the constitution of collegia for different charges (International Taxation/Transfer Pricing, Exemptions, Central, and 'all other cases'), the Income-tax (Twenty-second Amendment) Rules, 2022 prescribing the procedure and Form No. 8A, and Circular No. 8/2023 dated 31 May 2023 revising the exceptions to the monetary limits for appeals deferred under the section. These instruments, rather than case law, presently govern its working.
Being recent, section 158AB has not yet been the subject of a reported decision construing it. The candour rule therefore applies: no court has yet interpreted the section; its meaning is, for now, governed by its text, the Board's order constituting the collegium, and the related rules and circulars. The consistency authorities below explain the rationale that the section codifies — and, in C. K. Gangadharan, the 'just cause' limit that the collegium is, in substance, asked to administer.
B. STATUTORY POSITION (verbatim text)
Reproduced from the local Act (base text to the Finance Act, 2025).
158AB. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where the collegium is of the opinion that—
(a) any question of law arising in the case of an assessee for any assessment year (such case being herein referred to as the relevant case) is identical with a question of law arising,—
(i) in his case for any other assessment year; or
(ii) in the case of any other assessee for any assessment year; and
(b) such question is pending before the jurisdictional High Court under section 260A or 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 Appellate Tribunal or the jurisdictional High Court, as the case may be, which is in favour of such assessee (such case being herein referred to as the other case), the collegium may, decide and inform the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner not to file any appeal, at this stage, to the Appellate Tribunal under sub-section (2) of section 253 or to the jurisdictional High Court under sub-section (2) of section 260A in the relevant case against the order of the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be.
(2) The Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner shall, on receipt of a communication from the collegium under sub-section (1), notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3) of section 253 or clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 260A, direct the Assessing Officer to make an application to the Appellate Tribunal or the jurisdictional High Court, as the case may be, in such form as may be prescribed within a period of one hundred and twenty days from the date of receipt of the order of the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals) or of the Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be, stating that an appeal on the question of law arising in the relevant case may be filed when the decision on such question of law becomes final in the other case.
(3) The Principal Commissioner or Commissioner shall direct the Assessing Officer to make an application under sub-section (2) 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 Principal Commissioner or Commissioner shall, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3) of section 253 or clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 260A, proceed in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of section 253 or in clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 260A.
(4) Where the order of the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the order of the Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be, referred to in sub-section (1) is not in conformity with the final decision on the question of law in the other case, as and when such order is received, the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may direct the Assessing Officer to appeal to the Appellate Tribunal or the jurisdictional High Court, as the case may be, against such order and save as otherwise provided in this section all other provisions of Part B and Part CC of Chapter XX shall apply accordingly.
(5) Every appeal under sub-section (4) shall be filed within a period of sixty days to the Appellate Tribunal or one hundred and twenty days to the High Court, as the case may be, from the date on which the order of the jurisdictional High Court or the Supreme Court in the other case is communicated to the Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner (having jurisdiction over the relevant case), in accordance with the procedure specified by the Board in this behalf.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, "collegium" means a collegium comprising of two or more Chief Commissioners or Principal Commissioners or Commissioners, as may be specified by the Board in this behalf.
C. AUTHORITIES
Section 158AB is a 2022 insertion and has not yet been judicially construed; in candour, the controlling material is the statutory text read with the Board's collegium order and rules/circulars. The consistency authorities supply the rationale, and C. K. Gangadharan supplies the 'just cause' calibration the collegium administers.
1. Operating framework (Board's collegium order, rules and circulars)
CBDT Order dated 28 September 2022; Income-tax (Twenty-second Amendment) Rules, 2022; Circular No. 8/2023
Position: The collegium under the Explanation to section 158AB is constituted by the CBDT's Order dated 28 September 2022, which specifies, for each class of charge, the senior officers who compose the collegium (the Principal Chief Commissioner (International Taxation) for International Taxation/Transfer Pricing appeals; the Principal Chief Commissioner (Exemptions) for exemption-charge appeals; the Chief Commissioner (Central)/DGIT (Investigation) for Central-charge appeals; and the Principal Chief Commissioner (CCA) for all other cases).
Procedure: The Income-tax (Twenty-second Amendment) Rules, 2022 prescribe the procedure and Form No. 8A for the Assessing Officer's application under section 158AB. Circular No. 8/2023 dated 31 May 2023 revised the exceptions to the monetary limits for filing appeals deferred under the section.
Significance: Until the courts construe the section, these instruments govern its day-to-day operation; identity of the question and the assessee's written acceptance under sub-section (3) remain the two jurisdictional checkpoints.
2. The consistency / non-discrimination doctrine, and its 'just cause' limit
These decisions supply both the rationale for deferring appeals on an identical question and the limit the collegium must apply — consistency unless there is just cause, public interest, or a need to resolve divergent views. That calibration is precisely what section 158AB institutionalises.
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 158AB — Procedure Where an Identical Question of Law is Pending Before High Courts or Supreme Court (Collegium Deferral of Appeals)
Case Laws & Commentary · Income-tax Act, 1961 (as amended by the Finance Act, 2026) · bharattax.co Treatise
Status: Live and operative. Inserted by the Finance Act, 2022 with effect from 1 April 2022. It is the current, and widest, mechanism for avoiding repetitive departmental appeals: a 'collegium' of senior officers may decide not to file an appeal, at that stage, where an identical question of law is pending before the jurisdictional High Court (section 260A) or the Supreme Court (section 261 / article 136), in the assessee's own case or in any other assessee's case.
FA 2026: No amendment by the Finance Act, 2026.
A. SECTION COMMENTARY
Section 158AB is the centrepiece of Chapter XIV-A in its present form. It enlarges the deferral idea of sections 158A and 158AA in two crucial ways. First, the identical question need only be pending before the jurisdictional High Court or the Supreme Court — it need not have reached the apex Court. Second, and more importantly, the lead 'other case' need not be the assessee's own; it may be a question pending in the case of any other assessee. The provision thus tackles systemic, recurring questions across taxpayers, not merely year-to-year repetition within one assessee's file.
The decision to defer is entrusted to a 'collegium', defined by the Explanation as a body of two or more Chief Commissioners or Principal Commissioners or Commissioners specified by the Board. Where the collegium is of the opinion that a question of law in the relevant case is identical with one pending before the jurisdictional High Court or the Supreme Court — against an order of the Tribunal or High Court in favour of the assessee — it may decide and inform the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner not to file an appeal, at this stage, against the order of the Joint Commissioner (Appeals)/Commissioner (Appeals)/Tribunal in the relevant case.
On receiving that communication, the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner must, notwithstanding the normal appeal provisions, direct the Assessing Officer to make an application — in the prescribed form (Form No. 8A) and within one hundred and twenty days of receipt of the appellate order — to the Tribunal or the jurisdictional High Court, stating that an appeal on the question may be filed when the decision in the other case becomes final. As with section 158AA, the application route requires the assessee's written acceptance of identity (sub-section (3)); without it, the Department proceeds with the normal appeal. When the lead matter is finally decided, if the appellate order in the relevant case is not in conformity, the Department may file the deferred appeal — within sixty days to the Tribunal or one hundred and twenty days to the High Court — in accordance with the procedure specified by the Board (sub-sections (4) and (5)).
The provision is, by design, a litigation-management tool and is read with the CBDT's operating instructions: the Board's Order dated 28 September 2022 specifying the constitution of collegia for different charges (International Taxation/Transfer Pricing, Exemptions, Central, and 'all other cases'), the Income-tax (Twenty-second Amendment) Rules, 2022 prescribing the procedure and Form No. 8A, and Circular No. 8/2023 dated 31 May 2023 revising the exceptions to the monetary limits for appeals deferred under the section. These instruments, rather than case law, presently govern its working.
Being recent, section 158AB has not yet been the subject of a reported decision construing it. The candour rule therefore applies: no court has yet interpreted the section; its meaning is, for now, governed by its text, the Board's order constituting the collegium, and the related rules and circulars. The consistency authorities below explain the rationale that the section codifies — and, in C. K. Gangadharan, the 'just cause' limit that the collegium is, in substance, asked to administer.
B. STATUTORY POSITION (verbatim text)
Reproduced from the local Act (base text to the Finance Act, 2025).
158AB. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where the collegium is of the opinion that—
(a) any question of law arising in the case of an assessee for any assessment year (such case being herein referred to as the relevant case) is identical with a question of law arising,—
(i) in his case for any other assessment year; or
(ii) in the case of any other assessee for any assessment year; and
(b) such question is pending before the jurisdictional High Court under section 260A or 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 Appellate Tribunal or the jurisdictional High Court, as the case may be, which is in favour of such assessee (such case being herein referred to as the other case), the collegium may, decide and inform the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner not to file any appeal, at this stage, to the Appellate Tribunal under sub-section (2) of section 253 or to the jurisdictional High Court under sub-section (2) of section 260A in the relevant case against the order of the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be.
(2) The Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner shall, on receipt of a communication from the collegium under sub-section (1), notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3) of section 253 or clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 260A, direct the Assessing Officer to make an application to the Appellate Tribunal or the jurisdictional High Court, as the case may be, in such form as may be prescribed within a period of one hundred and twenty days from the date of receipt of the order of the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals) or of the Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be, stating that an appeal on the question of law arising in the relevant case may be filed when the decision on such question of law becomes final in the other case.
(3) The Principal Commissioner or Commissioner shall direct the Assessing Officer to make an application under sub-section (2) 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 Principal Commissioner or Commissioner shall, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3) of section 253 or clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 260A, proceed in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of section 253 or in clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 260A.
(4) Where the order of the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the order of the Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be, referred to in sub-section (1) is not in conformity with the final decision on the question of law in the other case, as and when such order is received, the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may direct the Assessing Officer to appeal to the Appellate Tribunal or the jurisdictional High Court, as the case may be, against such order and save as otherwise provided in this section all other provisions of Part B and Part CC of Chapter XX shall apply accordingly.
(5) Every appeal under sub-section (4) shall be filed within a period of sixty days to the Appellate Tribunal or one hundred and twenty days to the High Court, as the case may be, from the date on which the order of the jurisdictional High Court or the Supreme Court in the other case is communicated to the Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner (having jurisdiction over the relevant case), in accordance with the procedure specified by the Board in this behalf.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, "collegium" means a collegium comprising of two or more Chief Commissioners or Principal Commissioners or Commissioners, as may be specified by the Board in this behalf.
C. AUTHORITIES
Section 158AB is a 2022 insertion and has not yet been judicially construed; in candour, the controlling material is the statutory text read with the Board's collegium order and rules/circulars. The consistency authorities supply the rationale, and C. K. Gangadharan supplies the 'just cause' calibration the collegium administers.
1. Operating framework (Board's collegium order, rules and circulars)
CBDT Order dated 28 September 2022; Income-tax (Twenty-second Amendment) Rules, 2022; Circular No. 8/2023
Position: The collegium under the Explanation to section 158AB is constituted by the CBDT's Order dated 28 September 2022, which specifies, for each class of charge, the senior officers who compose the collegium (the Principal Chief Commissioner (International Taxation) for International Taxation/Transfer Pricing appeals; the Principal Chief Commissioner (Exemptions) for exemption-charge appeals; the Chief Commissioner (Central)/DGIT (Investigation) for Central-charge appeals; and the Principal Chief Commissioner (CCA) for all other cases).
Procedure: The Income-tax (Twenty-second Amendment) Rules, 2022 prescribe the procedure and Form No. 8A for the Assessing Officer's application under section 158AB. Circular No. 8/2023 dated 31 May 2023 revised the exceptions to the monetary limits for filing appeals deferred under the section.
Significance: Until the courts construe the section, these instruments govern its day-to-day operation; identity of the question and the assessee's written acceptance under sub-section (3) remain the two jurisdictional checkpoints.
2. The consistency / non-discrimination doctrine, and its 'just cause' limit
These decisions supply both the rationale for deferring appeals on an identical question and the limit the collegium must apply — consistency unless there is just cause, public interest, or a need to resolve divergent views. That calibration is precisely what section 158AB institutionalises.
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.