This compilation indexes twelve income-tax rulings — spanning ITAT benches across Delhi, Kolkata, Hyderabad, Pune, Visakhapatnam, and Cochin, as well as the Calcutta, Madras, Meghalaya, Kerala, and Delhi High Courts — in which Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 formed part of the procedural or substantive framework. The rulings cover the period November 2023 to July 2026. The compilation is intended for in-house tax teams, Big-4 associates, and law-firm researchers who need a structured index of recent appellate activity touching Section 246A across diverse subject-matter contexts — refund interest computation, stay of demand, maintainability of appeals, rectification orders, and reassessment proceedings.

Research index only. This page is a structured case-law reference derived from the TaxNoticeAI legal corpus. Nothing on this page constitutes legal or tax advice. Readers must independently verify each ruling against the full judgment text, check for subsequent stays, reversals, or appeals, and consult qualified advisers before relying on any case for planning or compliance purposes.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 specifies the orders against which an assessee — or, in certain cases, the revenue — may prefer an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The section enumerates a defined list of appealable orders, including orders of assessment, reassessment, and recomputation passed under various provisions of the Act, orders imposing penalties, orders passed under Section 154 by way of rectification, and certain other orders specified therein. An appeal under Section 246A must ordinarily be filed within thirty days of service of the notice of demand relating to the order or, where no such demand is served, within thirty days of the date of the order appealed against, though the CIT(A) has power to condone delay. The provision is a gateway section: its scope determines whether a particular order is amenable to first-level appellate scrutiny before the CIT(A), and questions of maintainability — whether the order under challenge is one that falls within Section 246A's enumerated list — have generated substantial litigation across tribunals and High Courts.

The 12 rulings

1. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Sony India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Date: 16 July 2026
Sections engaged: 244A, 246A
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The Revenue filed appeals (ITA Nos. 5416 & 5580/Del/2024) for AYs 2007-08 and 2008-09 against M/s Sony India Pvt. Ltd. (PAN: AABCS1571Q), which was engaged in the import and distribution of various Sony products including audio/visual entertainment products in Indian markets. The dispute, as visible from the source preview, centres on the computation of interest under Section 244A, with differing figures between the Assessing Officer's mechanism and the assessee's mechanism regarding the balance refund receivable and the interest component attributable to a part refund received in November 2018. The appeal was heard on 23 June 2026 and pronounced on 16 July 2026; the substantive outcome is not specified in the source.

2. DCIT, Circle -34, Kolkata, Kolkata vs Piyush Agarwala, Kolkata

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata
Date: 1 July 2026
Sections engaged: 148A(b), 246A
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: These are three revenue appeals (ITA Nos. 589, 620 & 621/Kol/2026) for Assessment Years 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2019-20 (PAN: ADDPA 5887 F), preferred against separate CIT(A)/NFAC orders dated 19.12.2025, 06.01.2026, and 23.12.2025 respectively. The Tribunal noted that all three appeals relate to the same assessee and have common issues; Section 148A(b) — the pre-reassessment show-cause notice stage — is engaged alongside Section 246A in the appellate framework. The substantive outcome is not specified in the source preview.

3. Narasimham Palanki, Hyderabad vs ITO, Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad
Date: 1 July 2026
Sections engaged: 246A
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The assessee filed ITA No. 354/Hyd/2026 for Assessment Year 2017-18 (PAN: AYKPP6394G) feeling aggrieved by the CIT(A)/NFAC order dated 13.03.2025. At the outset, the Tribunal noted a delay of 249 days in filing the appeal before it; the assessee filed a condonation petition supported by an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay, with the authorised representative submitting that the assessee is an individual. The substantive outcome of the condonation and the main appeal is not specified in the source preview.

4. Dnyaneshwar More Bigarsheti Gramin vs ITO, Ward-2, Pandharpur, Pandharpur

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune
Date: 23 June 2026
Sections engaged: 139(1), 246A
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The assessee, a co-operative credit society, filed ITA No. 235/PUN/2025 for Assessment Year 2018-19 (PAN: AAAAD6706F) directed against the CIT(A)/NFAC order dated 29-11-2024. Per the source preview, for AY 2018-19 the assessee filed its return of income on 16-09-2018, declaring total income of Rs. NIL after claiming a deduction; the appeal touches on the return filing under Section 139(1) in the context of the Section 246A appellate challenge. The substantive outcome is not specified in the source.

5. Nagarjuna Vutla, Eluru vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Eluru

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Vizag
Date: 5 December 2025
Sections engaged: 143(1), 246A
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The assessee filed ITA No. 524/VIZ/2025 for Assessment Year 2024-25 (PAN: AOUPN9597D) against the CIT(A)/ADDL/JCIT(A)-5, Chennai order dated 10.06.2025, which arose out of an intimation passed under Section 143(1) of the Act dated 05.02.2025. The appeal was heard in hybrid mode and pronounced on 05.12.2025; the invocation of Section 246A here arises in the context of whether the intimation-based order is an appealable order. The substantive outcome is not specified in the source preview.

6. Dunigram Jana Kalyan Samity vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

Bench: Calcutta High Court
Date: 10 September 2025
Sections engaged: 154, 119(2)(b), 246A
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The assessee filed this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act challenging the ITAT "SMC" Bench Kolkata order dated 7.7.2025 in ITA No. 960/Kol/2025 for Assessment Year 2017-18. One of the substantial questions of law raised was whether the Tribunal was justified in treating the impugned order referred to in Form 35 as one passed under Section 119(2)(b) rather than under Section 154, when Form 35 had mentioned Section 154 but recorded the date 29.04.2022 — because the online filing system did not permit simultaneous mention of two dates (06.08.2019 and 29.04.2022) for the rectification order and the execution order respectively, both of which the assessee sought to challenge. The substantive outcome at the High Court level is not specified in the source preview.

7. Retnaraj Joanitta vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 11 August 2025
Sections engaged: 220(6), 246A
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petitioner filed W.P.(MD) No. 21870 of 2025 before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the impugned recovery orders (dated 18.06.2025 and 07.07.2025) and to direct the CIT(A) to decide the petitioner's appeal against the assessment order dated 14.05.2025 without insisting upon payment of 20% of the demand amount as a precondition for deciding the appeal. The interplay of Section 220(6) — which governs stay of recovery pending appeal — with Section 246A's appellate right is the central procedural issue; the substantive outcome is not specified in the source preview.

8. Date Of Order: 17.06.2025 vs The Union Of India Represented By Its

Bench: Meghalaya High Court
Date: 17 June 2025
Sections engaged: 156, 220(6), 246A
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petitioner Shri Mitchell Wankhar filed WP(C) Nos. 52 and 65 of 2025 before the High Court of Meghalaya at Shillong, with respondents including the Union of India, the Commissioner of Income Tax, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, State Bank of India, and Meghalaya Rural Bank. The source preview reflects that Section 156 (notice of demand), Section 220(6) (stay of recovery pending appeal), and Section 246A are all cited, suggesting the writ addresses recovery action taken while an appeal was pending or being processed. The substantive outcome is not specified in the source preview.

9. Manjooran Housing Development Company vs The Assessing Officer In Charge Of

Bench: Kerala High Court
Date: 27 May 2025
Sections engaged: 142(1), 246A
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petitioner, Manjooran Housing Development Company P Ltd., filed WP(C) No. 14478 of 2023 before the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam challenging an assessment order pertaining to Assessment Year 2018-19. Per the source preview, the petitioner was initially served with a notice under Section 142(1) requiring it to furnish certain details to enable assessment; the company subsequently challenged the resulting assessment order (Ext.P3), with the CIT(A)/NFAC and the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NAFAC) both arrayed as respondents. The Section 246A dimension relates to the pending first-level appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC; the substantive outcome of the writ is not specified in the source preview.

10. Appellant vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 29 April 2025
Sections engaged: 154, 246A
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Tax Case Appeal No. 643 of 2008 was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act before the High Court of Judicature at Madras (reserved 19.03.2025, pronounced 29.04.2025), challenging the ITAT Chennai Bench "D" order dated 18th May 2007 in ITA No. 2475/MDS/2006 for Assessment Year 2002-2003. The source preview records that a rectification application under Section 154 was initiated on 06.05.2005 (order dated 25.08.2005) and an appeal under Section 246A was filed on 12.05.2005 (order dated 15.11.2006), illustrating the parallel procedural tracks of rectification and first-level appeal that were eventually carried to the High Court. The substantive outcome at the High Court level is not specified in the source preview.

11. The Chorode Service Co-Op Bank Ltd vs ITO, Ward-2(2), Kozhikode

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Cochin
Date: 5 November 2024
Sections engaged: 143(1), 143(3), 246A
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The Tribunal heard ITA Nos. 122 and 123/Coch/2024 for Assessment Years 2018-2019 and 2020-2021 (PAN: AAAAT7826N) ex parte against the assessee, as the assessee did not appear despite the cases being called twice. The CIT(A)/NFAC had rejected the assessee's appeal as not maintainable on the ground that while an addition of Rs. 6,18,71,520/- was made in the order under Section 143(1), the assessee had sought adjudication on that addition in an appeal filed against an order under Section 143(3) — thereby raising a maintainability issue under Section 246A about whether the correct underlying order was appealed before the CIT(A). The substantive outcome of the Tribunal's consideration of the maintainability finding is not specified in the source preview.

12. Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Cairnhill Cipef Ltd

Bench: Delhi High Court
Date: 7 November 2023
Sections engaged: 163, 246A
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: ITA 610/2023 was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2 before the Delhi High Court, concerning Assessment Year 2016-17. The appeal challenged the ITAT order dated 19.12.2022; a condonation application (CM Appl. 57566/2023) for delay of 114 days in filing was allowed, with the respondent/assessee not objecting to condonation. Section 163 — relating to who may be treated as a representative assessee — is engaged alongside Section 246A in the appellate framework; the hearing was conducted in physical/hybrid mode. The substantive outcome on the merits is not specified in the source preview.

Patterns across these 12 rulings

Stay of recovery as a threshold issue alongside Section 246A. At least two rulings — Case 7 (Retnaraj Joanitta, Madras HC) and Case 8 (Mitchell Wankhar, Meghalaya HC) — involve petitioners approaching High Courts under Article 226 in circumstances where Section 220(6) stay of recovery and the right of appeal under Section 246A intersect. In both, the writ appears to have been triggered by recovery or demand action taken while an appeal under Section 246A was pending or sought to be processed, pointing to a recurring tension between the appellate right and collection enforcement.
Maintainability of appeal as a distinct contested ground. Cases 5 (Nagarjuna Vutla, ITAT Vizag) and 11 (Chorode Service Co-Op Bank, ITAT Cochin) each raise, in different ways, the question of whether the correct underlying order was identified and appealed under Section 246A. In Case 11, the CIT(A)/NFAC rejected the appeal as not maintainable because an addition made in a Section 143(1) order was challenged in an appeal filed against a Section 143(3) order. This mismatch between the order that generated the grievance and the order formally appealed is a recurring maintainability trap visible across these rulings.
Condonation of delay as a live procedural issue. Cases 3 (Narasimham Palanki, ITAT Hyderabad, delay of 249 days) and 12 (Commissioner of Income Tax vs Cairnhill Cipef Ltd., Delhi HC, delay of 114 days) both required delay condonation petitions before the substantive hearing could proceed. This reflects the frequency with which delay at the appellate stage — whether at the Tribunal or at the High Court — independently occupies judicial time within Section 246A proceedings.
Rectification orders and the identification of the "impugned order" in Form 35. Cases 6 (Dunigram Jana Kalyan Samity, Calcutta HC) and 10 (Appellant vs ACIT, Madras HC) both involve the interplay between Section 154 rectification orders and Section 246A appeals. Case 6 specifically raises a question of law about whether the online Form 35 system's inability to record two dates simultaneously caused the Tribunal to misidentify which order was actually being challenged — a systemic procedural issue with the faceless/digital appeals infrastructure.
Revenue-filed appeals and NFAC orders as the springboard for Section 246A proceedings. Multiple cases — including Cases 2 (DCIT vs Piyush Agarwala), 4 (Dnyaneshwar More Bigarsheti Gramin vs ITO), and 1 (DCIT vs Sony India) — arise from CIT(A)/NFAC orders that were themselves issued through the faceless appeal mechanism, with the revenue or assessee then escalating to the Tribunal. This pattern underscores that NFAC disposal has become the standard first-level output against which Section 246A appellate rights are exercised at the Tribunal tier.

How to use this compilation

This compilation is organised as a research index, not as a digest of settled propositions. Because every case listed above records "Outcome not specified in source," researchers should treat the entries as pointers to the full judgment text rather than as authoritative holdings. Before relying on any ruling for a filing, submission, or advisory note, you should obtain and read the complete order from the relevant court portal (indiankanoon.org, the ITAT e-filing portal, or the respective High Court's judgment information system) and verify that the disposition, the ratio, and any directions are accurately reflected in your research note.

Researchers should also check whether any of these orders have been stayed, reversed, or taken in further appeal. An ITAT order may have been challenged before the High Court under Section 260A; a High Court interim or final order may have been taken to the Supreme Court by special leave. The source data in this compilation reflects the order as pronounced on the listed date and does not track subsequent appellate history. Similarly, check for CBDT instructions, circulars, or notifications that may have prospectively modified the procedural regime — for instance, changes to the faceless appeal scheme, Form 35 filing requirements, or the pre-deposit requirements under Section 249 — that could affect the relevance of a ruling to a current fact pattern.

Finally, because Section 246A operates as a gateway to the entire appellate hierarchy — CIT(A), ITAT, High Court, Supreme Court — the section-level tagging in this compilation captures only the entry point. Each ruling typically engages additional substantive provisions (as listed in the "Sections engaged" field for each case). Cross-reference those provisions in your primary-section research before concluding that a ruling is or is not on point for a given client or matter.

Source

All cases listed above are drawn from the TaxNoticeAI structured legal corpus (16,101 Indian tax judgments, CBIC circulars, ITAT rulings, AAR rulings, GSTAT rulings), sourced from indiankanoon.org and official court portals.

Section 246A Income Tax Appeals: 12 ITAT & HC Rulings (2023–2026)