2024 (9) TMI 1525 - HC - Income Tax

Application u/s 158AB - Procedure where an identical question of law is pending before High Courts or Supreme Court - HELD THAT - Having perused the provisions of Section 158AB as also Rule 16 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, as also the record which annexes Form 8A which sets out all the necessary details qua the proceedings as noted hereinabove, in our opinion, the application needs to be accepted as consented by the respondent/assessee. This Miscellaneous Application is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) (b).

Summary

Issues:
Application under Section 158A (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule No. 16 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 regarding identical questions of law pending before High Courts or the Supreme Court.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application filed by the revenue under Section 158A (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning the procedure where an identical question of law is pending before High Courts or the Supreme Court. The provision of Section 158AB, inserted by the Finance Act, 2022, aims to prevent unnecessary litigation when similar legal issues are present in different cases. It allows legal proceedings to be kept in abeyance pending the outcome of related cases, ensuring an appropriate decision can be made based on the pending proceedings. The application was filed as the assessee's case for a previous assessment year was already pending before the court on a similar legal question, while the present case pertained to a different assessment year. The collegium, as per Section 158AB, decided that the revenue could file an appeal after the decision in the pending appeal for the previous assessment year. The respondent/assessee had accepted that the legal question in the other case was identical to the present case, leading to the filing of the application seeking permission to file an appeal after the decision in the pending appeal.

The judges, after reviewing the provisions of Section 158AB and Rule 16 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, along with the details provided in Form 8A, concluded that the application should be accepted as it was consented to by the respondent/assessee. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Application was allowed in terms of the prayer clauses (a) & (b) mentioned in the application. The judgment was disposed of accordingly, with no costs imposed on either party.