A single drafting difference in section 360 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 may create a litigation question: clause (b) refers only to Commissioner (Appeals) for the power to set aside and remand an assessment, while the opening phrase names both Commissioner (Appeals) and Joint Commissioner (Appeals).
Section 360(1) opens by granting powers to the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), but clause (b) expressly mentions only the Commissioner (Appeals) for the power to set aside and remit an assessment.
Two plausible statutory interpretations exist: a textual reading limiting the set-aside power to the Commissioner (Appeals), and a contextual reading treating clause (b) as applying to both appellate authorities.
The difference matters operationally because remanding an assessment transfers the dispute back to the Assessing Officer rather than disposing the appeal on merits at the appellate stage.
Why a single word creates a legal question Under the 1961 Act, powers of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) were separately structured, so the statute expressly distinguished their capacities. The 2025 Act adopts consolidated drafting, but clause (b)'s selective wording opens two competing readings:
How the difference affects taxpayers and the department Setting aside and remanding an assessment has a distinct procedural consequence: instead of adjudicating disputed issues on appeal, the appellate body sends the case back for a fresh assessment. That shifts the forum for fact-finding and can restart evidence-gathering, notices, and assessment procedures. If JCIT(A) lacks authority to remit, parties who appear before JCIT(A) will expect a final appellate disposal rather than referral back to the Assessing Officer. Practical implications and likely litigation themes Litigation will focus on statutory construction principles. Arguments will include:
Possible operational responses pending judicial clarity Tax officers and appellate benches may adopt interim practices: either follow a cautious approach and limit remands to Commissioners (Appeals), or continue established practice of allowing JCIT(A) remands while noting the potential for challenge. Taxpayers should record objections and preserve issues if a JCIT(A) orders a remand.
A small drafting variation in section 360 could produce a significant procedural litigation point: whether the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) can set aside an assessment and remit it for fresh assessment. Resolving that question will require textual analysis, context, and possibly judicial intervention. Practitioners should monitor developments and preserve arguments on jurisdiction and statutory construction when the issue arises.
Section 147A: Supreme Court Steps In — What Does It Mean for Reassessment Proceedings? The controversy surrounding the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to issue reassessment notices under Sections 148 and 148A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has now reached the Supreme Court in a significant manner. The Punjab & Hary
The Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the newly inserted Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as unconstitutional. The provision mentioned the role of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) in income tax reassessment proceedings. The ruling has been delivered by the Bench of Justice Deepak Sibal and Just
The Central Government has moved the Supreme Court challenging a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment that struck down Section 147A of the Income Tax Act as unconstitutional. The High Court’s ruling invalidated the retrospective amendment and questioned the authority of Jurisdictional Assessing Officers (JAOs) to ini
Supreme Court explains the limits of reassessment powers when a tax dispute has already been concluded by a final Settlement Commission order.
Section 147A: Supreme Court Stays Ruling Striking It Down – Reassessment Proceedings Also Frozen The controversy surrounding Section 147A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 has now reached the Supreme Court, and the interim order has significant implications for pending reassessment proceedings. On 18 September 2026, a Bench
The Income Tax Department also noted that the individuals had not filed an income tax return (ITR) for the relevant year. This meant the department did not have details of the income he had earned during the period under scrutiny.
Loading more related stories...
Open the app view to save this story, compare related coverage, and continue from the same source.