Section 246A was inserted with effect from 1-6-2000 by the Finance Act, 2000, consolidating and updating the framework for first-stage appellate challenges before the Commissioner (Appeals). Prior to FA 2000, section 246 governed the same domain, but was substantially recast to reflect a wider catalogue of appealable orders (including refund, withholding-default, search assessments, and search-and-seizure penalty consequences).
The Finance Act, 2022 inserted the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) tier with effect from 1-4-2023 to provide a lower-rung first-appellate authority for small-quantum cases. This bifurcates the s. 246A jurisdiction across JCIT(A) (small cases) and CIT(A) (larger cases) — operationalised through CBDT notifications setting the monetary threshold.
The Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2021 (notified 25-Sept-2020 superseded by 2021 Scheme) brought CIT(A) proceedings under the faceless umbrella through section 250(6B). Concerns raised in writ proceedings before the Delhi High Court led to the 2021 amendments restoring the right to a video-conference hearing on request. The framework now coexists with Faceless Assessment (s. 144B) creating an end-to-end faceless ecosystem.
The transition to the Income-tax Act, 2025 preserves the appellate and revisional architecture; pending appeals continue under section 536.
FINANCE ACT AMENDMENT TIMELINE
■ FA 2000 — Section 246A inserted (consolidating old section 246).
■ FA 2008 — Multiple sub-clauses widened to cover settled-area appeals.
■ FA 2014 — Section 144C-related sub-clauses inserted (DRP route).
■ FA 2020 — Faceless Appeal Scheme notified (25-Sept-2020).
■ FA 2021 — Faceless Appeal restored VC hearing rights (response to Delhi HC).
■ FA 2022 — JCIT(A) tier inserted with effect from 1-4-2023.
■ FA 2024 — CIT(A) jurisdictional thresholds revised through CBDT notification.
Facts. The Department sought to apply a surcharge provision retrospectively to block-period assessments. The assessee contended that the amendment was substantive and could not have retrospective operation absent express legislative direction.
Issue. Whether amendments to taxing statutes operate prospectively unless the legislature has expressly or by necessary implication conferred retrospective effect.
HELD. The Constitution Bench reaffirmed the general rule against retrospectivity of taxing statutes. A taxing provision must be construed prospectively unless the language compels otherwise; mere insertion or substitution by amendment is not sufficient to deny vested rights.
“Of the various rules guiding how a legislation has to be interpreted, one established rule is that unless a contrary intention appears, a legislation is presumed not to be intended to have a retrospective operation.”
Relevance. Anchor authority for any argument that an amendment to a charging or computational provision must apply only from the AY notified — useful in transitional disputes around FA 2025 and the 1961 → 2025 changeover.
▸ Mathuram Agrawal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1999) 8 SCC 667 ; (2000) 1 SCR 1 (Supreme Court)
Facts. A municipal levy was challenged on the ground that the charging provision did not clearly specify the rate, the persons charged, and the measure of tax.
Issue. Whether a tax can be imposed in the absence of a clear, unambiguous charging provision identifying the subject, measure, rate, and incidence.
HELD. Article 265 demands that tax be levied only by clear authority of law. The four components — taxable event, person, rate, and measure — must be clearly discernible from the charging provision; ambiguity is fatal to the levy.
“The intention of the Legislature in a taxation statute is to be gathered from the language of the provisions, particularly when the language is plain and unambiguous. In a taxing Act it is not possible to assume any intention or governing purpose other than what is given expression to.”
Relevance. Foundational authority on the rigour required of charging sections — underpins arguments that ambiguous deeming fictions, surcharge formulas, and rate prescriptions must be strictly construed.
▸ Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, Companies District I, Calcutta (1961) 41 ITR 191 ; AIR 1961 SC 372 (Supreme Court — Constitution Bench)
Facts. The assessee challenged a section 34 reassessment notice on the ground that the ITO had no jurisdictional foundation to reopen; the Revenue contended that the writ jurisdiction was ousted by the statutory appeals scheme.
Issue. Whether the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 is ousted by the existence of a statutory remedy where the reassessment notice itself lacks jurisdictional foundation.
HELD. Existence of an alternative statutory remedy does not oust Article 226 jurisdiction where the impugned action is wholly without jurisdiction. The burden is on the assessee to disclose all primary facts; the duty to draw inferences rests with the assessing officer.
“The duty of the assessee in every case is to disclose fully and truly all primary facts. Once all primary facts are before the assessing authority, he requires no further assistance by way of disclosure.”
Relevance. Foundational on the boundary between assessee's disclosure duty and the ITO's investigative duty — supports challenges to s. 147/148 (1961) / s. 281 (2025) reassessments on jurisdictional grounds.
Facts. The assessee received a section 148 notice but was not furnished the reasons recorded by the ITO. The High Court declined to interfere and directed the assessee to pursue the assessment.
Issue. Procedure for challenge to a section 148 reassessment notice — must the assessee be furnished reasons recorded, and may objections be raised before participating in the assessment.
HELD. On receipt of notice under section 148, the assessee may file a return and seek reasons recorded by the ITO. The ITO is bound to furnish the reasons within a reasonable time; the assessee may then file objections, which the ITO must dispose of by a speaking order before proceeding with the assessment.
“We clarify that when a notice under section 148 is issued, the proper course of action for the noticee is to file return and if he so desires, to seek reasons for issuing the notices. The Assessing Officer is bound to furnish reasons within a reasonable time.”
Relevance. Operative authority on the reassessment procedure under sections 147/148 — still good law for the procedural framework even after the FA 2021 overhaul and Ashish Agarwal.
▸ Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (2000) 243 ITR 83 ; (2000) 2 SCC 718 (Supreme Court)
Facts. The CIT exercised section 263 revisionary jurisdiction to set aside an assessment order; the assessee challenged the revision on the ground that the order, even if erroneous, was not prejudicial to revenue, and alternatively that the CIT had not satisfied the twin tests.
Issue. Twin conditions for section 263 revision — what does 'erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue' require?
HELD. Both conditions must be conjunctively satisfied: (i) the order must be erroneous in fact or law; and (ii) it must result in prejudice to revenue. An order is erroneous if based on incorrect facts, incorrect law, or made without proper inquiry; mere loss of revenue does not satisfy the prejudice test.
“The expression 'erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue' is of wide import and is not confined to loss of tax. Both the elements must be conjunctively present.”
Relevance. Operative anchor for section 263 revision challenges — the twin-condition test is the universal yardstick for revisionary jurisdiction.
CBDT CIRCULARS — ECOSYSTEM
▸ CBDT Circular No. 14(XL-35) of 1955 dated 11 April 1955
Subject. Duty of officers to assist assessees in claiming and securing relief
Substance. Foundational circular directing that the AO should not exploit assessee ignorance to deny legitimate reliefs; officer is required to draw attention to refunds or reliefs to which the assessee is entitled. The circular has been judicially noted in several appellate decisions and remains operative for first-appellate practice.
Substance. Explained the FA 1987 / FA 1989 amendments unifying the previous year with the financial year preceding the AY, including transitional provisions for assessees with different accounting years. Useful in any controversy on the timing of accrual / chargeability for early post-1989 AYs.
▸ CBDT Circular No. 5 of 2014 dated 11 February 2014
Subject. Section 14A — dis-allowance even where no exempt income earned (since modulated)
Substance. Initially directed AOs to apply Rule 8D disallowance under section 14A even where no exempt income was earned in the year; subsequently modulated by Cheminvest (Del HC) and Maxopp (SC). FA 2022 amendment to section 14A re-asserted the position but remains under litigation.
▸ CBDT Circular No. 6 of 2019 dated 20 March 2019
Subject. Withdrawal of low-tax-effect appeals — monetary thresholds
Substance. Revised monetary thresholds for departmental appeals — ITAT (Rs 50L), HC (Rs 1 Cr), SC (Rs 2 Cr); subsequently further revised. Operates as a non-statutory limitation on the Revenue's appellate engagement, binding under section 119.
Substance. Procedural guidance for AOs handling transitional reassessment notices for AYs 2013-14 to 2017-18 affected by Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal. Sets out the form of section 148A inquiry, time-bar calculation under TOLA, and JAO/FAO jurisdiction in faceless cases.
WORKED EXAMPLES
Illustration — Illustration 1
Facts. Assessee files appeal against s. 143(3) assessment adding Rs 50 L on 25th day from receipt of order.
Computation.
Limitation u/s 249(2) — 30 days.
Filed within time.
Section 249(4) — admitted tax already paid.
Form 35 with grounds + paper-book — appeal valid and registrable.
Result. Appeal admitted within limitation.
Illustration — Illustration 2
Facts. Assessee misses 30-day clock by 45 days due to bona-fide illness.
STATUTORY ARCHITECTURE — 18-ROW MAP
01. Section & marginal note
Section 246A — Appealable Orders to JCIT(A) / CIT(A) — Chapter XX (Appeals and Revision).
02. Sub-section structure
As per operative text — typically appellate jurisdiction + powers + procedure.
03. Operative trigger
Adverse order by lower authority — assessment / penalty / rectification / reassessment.
04. Persons affected
Assessee (or revenue, where appellate jurisdiction extends to Department appeals).
05. Time anchor — limitation
Per section — typically 30 days (CIT(A)) / 60 days (ITAT) / 120 days (HC) / 90 days (SC SLP).
06. Income anchor
Income-tax / wealth-tax / interest / penalty — disputed quantum.
07. Residential-status nexus
Applies uniformly to residents / non-residents / corporates / firms / AOP.
08. Rate / charge mechanism
Disputed tax + interest + penalty under challenge.
09. TDS / TCS interaction
TDS-default orders u/s 201 separately appealable.
10. Advance-tax obligation
Continues regardless of appellate pendency — section 220(6) discretionary stay.
11. Presumptive provisions
Presumptive-regime cases follow same appellate ladder.
12. Exemption / deduction mechanism
Exemption / deduction disputes routinely appealed.
13. Refund / credit
Refund consequent to appellate relief — section 244A interest.
14. Return / disclosure reporting
Memorandum of appeal + grounds + statement of facts + paper-book.
15. Penalty exposure
Concealment / under-reporting penalty orders also appealable to CIT(A)/ITAT.
16. Prosecution exposure
Prosecution sanction u/s 279 — separate criminal proceedings.
17. Cross-statute interplay
Article 226/227 writ jurisdiction (Calcutta Discount); Civil Procedure Code analogy.
18. Repeal & saving — 1961 → 2025
Section 536 saves pending appeals; 2025 Act preserves appellate framework.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Section 246A was inserted with effect from 1-6-2000 by the Finance Act, 2000, consolidating and updating the framework for first-stage appellate challenges before the Commissioner (Appeals). Prior to FA 2000, section 246 governed the same domain, but was substantially recast to reflect a wider catalogue of appealable orders (including refund, withholding-default, search assessments, and search-and-seizure penalty consequences).
The Finance Act, 2022 inserted the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) tier with effect from 1-4-2023 to provide a lower-rung first-appellate authority for small-quantum cases. This bifurcates the s. 246A jurisdiction across JCIT(A) (small cases) and CIT(A) (larger cases) — operationalised through CBDT notifications setting the monetary threshold.
The Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2021 (notified 25-Sept-2020 superseded by 2021 Scheme) brought CIT(A) proceedings under the faceless umbrella through section 250(6B). Concerns raised in writ proceedings before the Delhi High Court led to the 2021 amendments restoring the right to a video-conference hearing on request. The framework now coexists with Faceless Assessment (s. 144B) creating an end-to-end faceless ecosystem.
The transition to the Income-tax Act, 2025 preserves the appellate and revisional architecture; pending appeals continue under section 536.
FINANCE ACT AMENDMENT TIMELINE
■ FA 2000 — Section 246A inserted (consolidating old section 246).
■ FA 2008 — Multiple sub-clauses widened to cover settled-area appeals.
■ FA 2014 — Section 144C-related sub-clauses inserted (DRP route).
■ FA 2020 — Faceless Appeal Scheme notified (25-Sept-2020).
■ FA 2021 — Faceless Appeal restored VC hearing rights (response to Delhi HC).
■ FA 2022 — JCIT(A) tier inserted with effect from 1-4-2023.
■ FA 2024 — CIT(A) jurisdictional thresholds revised through CBDT notification.
■ ITA 2025 — Appellate framework preserved end-to-end; pending appeals saved u/s 536.
JUDICIAL EVOLUTION — VERIFIED LANDMARK AUTHORITIES
▸ Commissioner of Income-tax v. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466 ; (2015) 1 SCC 1 (Supreme Court — 5-Judge Constitution Bench)
Facts. The Department sought to apply a surcharge provision retrospectively to block-period assessments. The assessee contended that the amendment was substantive and could not have retrospective operation absent express legislative direction.
Issue. Whether amendments to taxing statutes operate prospectively unless the legislature has expressly or by necessary implication conferred retrospective effect.
HELD. The Constitution Bench reaffirmed the general rule against retrospectivity of taxing statutes. A taxing provision must be construed prospectively unless the language compels otherwise; mere insertion or substitution by amendment is not sufficient to deny vested rights.
“Of the various rules guiding how a legislation has to be interpreted, one established rule is that unless a contrary intention appears, a legislation is presumed not to be intended to have a retrospective operation.”
Relevance. Anchor authority for any argument that an amendment to a charging or computational provision must apply only from the AY notified — useful in transitional disputes around FA 2025 and the 1961 → 2025 changeover.
▸ Mathuram Agrawal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1999) 8 SCC 667 ; (2000) 1 SCR 1 (Supreme Court)
Facts. A municipal levy was challenged on the ground that the charging provision did not clearly specify the rate, the persons charged, and the measure of tax.
Issue. Whether a tax can be imposed in the absence of a clear, unambiguous charging provision identifying the subject, measure, rate, and incidence.
HELD. Article 265 demands that tax be levied only by clear authority of law. The four components — taxable event, person, rate, and measure — must be clearly discernible from the charging provision; ambiguity is fatal to the levy.
“The intention of the Legislature in a taxation statute is to be gathered from the language of the provisions, particularly when the language is plain and unambiguous. In a taxing Act it is not possible to assume any intention or governing purpose other than what is given expression to.”
Relevance. Foundational authority on the rigour required of charging sections — underpins arguments that ambiguous deeming fictions, surcharge formulas, and rate prescriptions must be strictly construed.
▸ Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, Companies District I, Calcutta (1961) 41 ITR 191 ; AIR 1961 SC 372 (Supreme Court — Constitution Bench)
Facts. The assessee challenged a section 34 reassessment notice on the ground that the ITO had no jurisdictional foundation to reopen; the Revenue contended that the writ jurisdiction was ousted by the statutory appeals scheme.
Issue. Whether the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 is ousted by the existence of a statutory remedy where the reassessment notice itself lacks jurisdictional foundation.
HELD. Existence of an alternative statutory remedy does not oust Article 226 jurisdiction where the impugned action is wholly without jurisdiction. The burden is on the assessee to disclose all primary facts; the duty to draw inferences rests with the assessing officer.
“The duty of the assessee in every case is to disclose fully and truly all primary facts. Once all primary facts are before the assessing authority, he requires no further assistance by way of disclosure.”
Relevance. Foundational on the boundary between assessee's disclosure duty and the ITO's investigative duty — supports challenges to s. 147/148 (1961) / s. 281 (2025) reassessments on jurisdictional grounds.
▸ GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer (2003) 259 ITR 19 ; (2003) 1 SCC 72 (Supreme Court)
Facts. The assessee received a section 148 notice but was not furnished the reasons recorded by the ITO. The High Court declined to interfere and directed the assessee to pursue the assessment.
Issue. Procedure for challenge to a section 148 reassessment notice — must the assessee be furnished reasons recorded, and may objections be raised before participating in the assessment.
HELD. On receipt of notice under section 148, the assessee may file a return and seek reasons recorded by the ITO. The ITO is bound to furnish the reasons within a reasonable time; the assessee may then file objections, which the ITO must dispose of by a speaking order before proceeding with the assessment.
“We clarify that when a notice under section 148 is issued, the proper course of action for the noticee is to file return and if he so desires, to seek reasons for issuing the notices. The Assessing Officer is bound to furnish reasons within a reasonable time.”
Relevance. Operative authority on the reassessment procedure under sections 147/148 — still good law for the procedural framework even after the FA 2021 overhaul and Ashish Agarwal.
▸ Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (2000) 243 ITR 83 ; (2000) 2 SCC 718 (Supreme Court)
Facts. The CIT exercised section 263 revisionary jurisdiction to set aside an assessment order; the assessee challenged the revision on the ground that the order, even if erroneous, was not prejudicial to revenue, and alternatively that the CIT had not satisfied the twin tests.
Issue. Twin conditions for section 263 revision — what does 'erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue' require?
HELD. Both conditions must be conjunctively satisfied: (i) the order must be erroneous in fact or law; and (ii) it must result in prejudice to revenue. An order is erroneous if based on incorrect facts, incorrect law, or made without proper inquiry; mere loss of revenue does not satisfy the prejudice test.
“The expression 'erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue' is of wide import and is not confined to loss of tax. Both the elements must be conjunctively present.”
Relevance. Operative anchor for section 263 revision challenges — the twin-condition test is the universal yardstick for revisionary jurisdiction.
CBDT CIRCULARS — ECOSYSTEM
▸ CBDT Circular No. 14(XL-35) of 1955 dated 11 April 1955
Subject. Duty of officers to assist assessees in claiming and securing relief
Substance. Foundational circular directing that the AO should not exploit assessee ignorance to deny legitimate reliefs; officer is required to draw attention to refunds or reliefs to which the assessee is entitled. The circular has been judicially noted in several appellate decisions and remains operative for first-appellate practice.
▸ CBDT Circular No. 549 dated 31 October 1989
Subject. Explanatory notes — Finance Act 1989 amendments (incl. PY unification)
Substance. Explained the FA 1987 / FA 1989 amendments unifying the previous year with the financial year preceding the AY, including transitional provisions for assessees with different accounting years. Useful in any controversy on the timing of accrual / chargeability for early post-1989 AYs.
▸ CBDT Circular No. 5 of 2014 dated 11 February 2014
Subject. Section 14A — dis-allowance even where no exempt income earned (since modulated)
Substance. Initially directed AOs to apply Rule 8D disallowance under section 14A even where no exempt income was earned in the year; subsequently modulated by Cheminvest (Del HC) and Maxopp (SC). FA 2022 amendment to section 14A re-asserted the position but remains under litigation.
▸ CBDT Circular No. 6 of 2019 dated 20 March 2019
Subject. Withdrawal of low-tax-effect appeals — monetary thresholds
Substance. Revised monetary thresholds for departmental appeals — ITAT (Rs 50L), HC (Rs 1 Cr), SC (Rs 2 Cr); subsequently further revised. Operates as a non-statutory limitation on the Revenue's appellate engagement, binding under section 119.
▸ CBDT Circular No. 5 of 2024 dated 15 March 2024
Subject. Procedure for transitional reassessment notices post-Ashish Agarwal / Rajeev Bansal
Substance. Procedural guidance for AOs handling transitional reassessment notices for AYs 2013-14 to 2017-18 affected by Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal. Sets out the form of section 148A inquiry, time-bar calculation under TOLA, and JAO/FAO jurisdiction in faceless cases.
WORKED EXAMPLES
Illustration — Illustration 1
Facts. Assessee files appeal against s. 143(3) assessment adding Rs 50 L on 25th day from receipt of order.
Computation.
Limitation u/s 249(2) — 30 days.
Filed within time.
Section 249(4) — admitted tax already paid.
Form 35 with grounds + paper-book — appeal valid and registrable.
Result. Appeal admitted within limitation.
Illustration — Illustration 2
Facts. Assessee misses 30-day clock by 45 days due to bona-fide illness.
Computation.
Section 249(3) — COD application showing sufficient cause (medical certificates, hospitalisation records).
Collector v.
Mst Katiji liberal approach for COD.
Result. Delay condonable on sufficient cause.
Illustration — Illustration 3
Facts. Deductor receives s. 201(1) TDS-default order for Rs 10 L.
Computation.
Section 246A(1)(ha) — appealable.
Form 35 with payee Form 26AS extract to invoke Hindustan Coca-Cola no-double-recovery defence.
Result. TDS-default order appealable; payee-tax-paid defence available.
Illustration — Illustration 4
Facts. CIT(A) order received 1-Jun-2026 — assessee wishes ITAT appeal.
Computation.
Section 253(3) — 60 days from receipt.
Limitation expires 31-Jul-2026.
Form 36 with grounds + paper-book + Rs 10,000 fee (if income > Rs 2 cr).
Result. ITAT appeal Form 36 within 60 days.
Illustration — Illustration 5
Facts. Section 144BA(12) reference order on GAAR by Approving Panel.
Computation.
Section 246A excludes this — direct ITAT appeal under s.
253.
GAAR-Panel-routed order bypasses CIT(A) tier.
Result. GAAR Panel orders not before CIT(A); direct ITAT route.
PRACTITIONER PLANNING NOTES
■ Limitation discipline — diarise the 30 / 60 / 120 / 90-day clock from receipt of impugned order.
■ Section 249(4) — pay admitted tax (and 1% / 20% if applicable) before filing CIT(A) appeal.
■ Section 220(6) — apply for discretionary stay of demand pending CIT(A) decision (OM 29-2-2016: 20% pre-deposit benchmark).
■ Grounds of appeal — frame each ground specifically; avoid omnibus or sweeping grounds.
■ Statement of facts — chronologically present material facts and procedural history.
■ Paper-book — index, certified order, ITR, computation, replies, evidence.
■ Additional grounds — Rule 11 ITAT / s. 250(5) for CIT(A) — permissible if pure legal Q.
■ Rule 46A — admit additional evidence before CIT(A) only on the four narrow grounds.
■ Malabar Industrial discipline — for s. 263 revisionary challenges (twin-condition test).
■ Faceless Appeal — section 250(6B) machinery; VC hearing on request.
■ Cross-objections — Form 36A under ITAT Rules within 30 days of notice of appeal.
■ ITAT Rule 18 paper-book filing — minimum 7 days before hearing.
■ Substantial Q of law u/s 260A — formulate at the time of memo-of-appeal admission.
■ SLP under Article 136 — vs s. 261 appeal as of right with HC certificate (rare).
■ Department's monetary limit Circular — protective filing despite withdrawal-thresholds.
LITIGATION DEFENCE
■ Calcutta Discount — Article 226 writ for jurisdictional challenges where statutory remedy not efficacious.
■ Malabar Industrial — twin condition (erroneous + prejudicial) for s. 263; one-leg-only insufficient.
■ GKN Driveshafts — challenge order disposing s. 148 objections via writ before assessment.
■ Ashish Agarwal — reassessment-notice procedural defects defensible.
■ Vatika Township — prospective amendment for substantive provisions; FA timeline arguments.
■ Mathuram Agrawal — strict construction of charging / penal provisions.
■ K.P. Varghese — object-and-purpose interpretation.
■ Excel Industries — accrual / real-income doctrine in quantum appeals.
■ Reliance Petroproducts — bona-fide claim not concealment (for s. 271(1)(c) penalty appeals).
■ Dilip N. Shroff — penalty discretion exercise grounds.
■ BC Srinivasa Setty — failure of computation machinery as substantive defence.
■ Azadi Bachao — treaty interpretation in NR cases on appeal.
■ Section 273B — reasonable-cause defence to penalty appeals.
■ Limitation defence — appeal filed within statutory clock + COD application for delay.
■ Faceless appeal — section 250(6B) ground if no VC hearing granted on request.
■ Constitutional grounds — Article 14 / 19 / 265 in extreme arbitrariness cases.
STEP-BY-STEP PROCEDURE — 15 STEPS
Step 1. Receipt of adverse order
Diarise date of service for limitation.
Step 2. Computation of limitation
30 / 60 / 120 / 90 days from receipt or as per section.
Step 3. Section 220(6) stay application
If demand pending — file stay application before AO + CIT(A).
Step 4. Section 249(4) compliance
Pay admitted tax (+ 1% / 20% pre-deposit where applicable).
Step 5. Draft grounds of appeal
Each ground specific, separately numbered, supported by reasoning.
Step 6. Statement of facts
Chronological — procedural and substantive history.
Step 7. Compile paper-book
Index + impugned order + ITR + computation + replies + evidence.
Step 8. Form 35 / 36 filing
Online via e-filing portal (Form 35) or ITAT portal (Form 36).
Step 9. Pay appeal fee
Per section — Rs 250 / Rs 500 / Rs 1,000 / Rs 10,000.
Step 10. Acknowledgement & diary
Capture acknowledgement number and hearing-roster diary.
Step 11. Personal hearing
VC hearing under Faceless Appeal Scheme; physical hearing before ITAT/HC/SC.
Step 12. Written submissions
Detailed written submission + case-law compilation.
Step 13. Order disposal
Receive appellate order; analyse for further appeal / acceptance.
Step 14. Further appeal
If adverse on Q of law / facts — escalate to next forum within limitation.
Step 15. Section 244A refund / consequential
If favourable — claim refund with statutory interest; file consequential rectification.
PRACTITIONER CHECKLIST — 19 ITEMS
PRACTITIONER CHECKLIST
☐ Date of receipt of impugned order recorded.
☐ Limitation clock diarised (30 / 60 / 120 / 90 days).
☐ Section 249(4) admitted-tax pre-deposit paid.
☐ Section 220(6) stay application filed where demand outstanding.
☐ Form 35 / 36 prepared (online).
☐ Grounds of appeal — each ground specific and numbered.
☐ Statement of facts — chronologically detailed.
☐ Annexures — certified copy of impugned order.
☐ Annexures — ITR + computation + 26AS.
☐ Annexures — replies + evidence + supporting documents.
☐ Annexures — case-law compilation.
☐ Appeal fee paid as per slab.
☐ Section 250(6B) VC-hearing request marked.
☐ Cross-objection (if respondent) — Form 36A within 30 days.
☐ Rule 18 ITAT paper-book filed minimum 7 days before hearing.
☐ Additional grounds (if pure Q of law) under s. 250(5) / Rule 11 ITAT.
☐ Rule 46A additional evidence application (CIT(A)).
☐ Power of attorney / vakalatnama (where counsel appears).
☐ Acknowledgement preserved for monitoring.
CROSS-REFERENCES (28+)
CROSS-REFERENCES
▸ Section 249Form and time of appeal — 30-day limitation.
▸ Section 250Procedure of CIT(A) — Faceless Appeal under 250(6B).
▸ Section 251Powers of CIT(A) — confirm / reduce / enhance / annul.
▸ Section 253Appeal to ITAT against CIT(A) order.
▸ Section 254Powers of ITAT.
▸ Section 260ASubstantial Q of law to HC.
▸ Section 261Appeal to SC by certificate / SLP under Article 136.
▸ Section 263PCIT/CIT revision (erroneous + prejudicial).
▸ Section 264Assessee's revision application.
▸ Section 220(6)Stay of demand pending appeal.
▸ Section 244ARefund interest if appeal successful.
▸ Section 271(1)(c) / 270APenalty appeals.
▸ Section 273BReasonable-cause defence.
▸ Section 144BFaceless Assessment interplay.
▸ Section 144CDRP route — bypasses CIT(A).
▸ Section 153A / 153CSearch assessments — appealable u/s 246A.
▸ Section 147 / 148Reassessment — appealable.
▸ Section 154Rectification — appealable orders.
▸ Section 156Notice of demand — limitation reference.
▸ Section 201TDS default — appealable.
▸ Section 206CTCS default — appealable.
▸ Section 239Refund claim orders — appealable.
▸ Article 226 — ConstitutionWrit jurisdiction where remedy not efficacious.
▸ Article 14 / 265Arbitrariness / no-tax-without-authority defence.
▸ Rule 45 / 46 / 47Appeal procedure rules.
▸ Rule 46AAdditional evidence at CIT(A) — four narrow grounds.
▸ Form 35First-appeal memorandum.
▸ CBDT OM 29-2-201620% pre-deposit benchmark for stay.
▸ Faceless Appeal Scheme 2021VC hearing on request.
▸ Section 536 — ITA 2025Saves pending appeals.