Section 368 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 — Hearing Before the Supreme Court

In plain language

What Section 368 actually says

Section 368 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 lays down the procedure the Supreme Court must follow when it hears an income-tax appeal. It does not create the right to appeal (that is Section 367) — it tells the Court and the parties how the hearing works once the appeal is admitted. In plain words, it borrows the well-established rules of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and applies them to tax appeals so that there is no separate, special procedure to learn.

• Procedure follows the CPC: The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 relating to appeals to the Supreme Court apply, "so far as may be," to appeals filed under Section 367 — exactly as they apply to an ordinary appeal from a decree of a High Court.
• Costs are discretionary: The cost of the appeal (legal expenses, fees, etc.) is left entirely to the discretion of the Supreme Court. The Court decides who pays and how much.
• Giving effect to the verdict: Where the Supreme Court varies or reverses the High Court's judgment, the order is given effect in the same manner as a High Court judgment is under Section 365(10) — meaning the Assessing Officer must recompute and pass a fresh order in line with the Supreme Court's decision.

Where Section 368 sits in the appeal ladder

The full appellate journey under the 2025 Act runs: Assessing Officer → CIT(A)/JCIT(A) → Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) → High Court (Section 365) → Supreme Court (Section 367 & 368). Section 368 governs only the very last, highest stage.

• Section 365 — appeal to the High Court, only where a substantial question of law is involved (filed within 120 days).
• Section 366 — the High Court case must be heard by not less than two judges, decided by majority.
• Section 367 — appeal to the Supreme Court lies only if the High Court certifies the case as fit for such appeal (or the taxpayer obtains Special Leave under Article 136 of the Constitution).
• Section 368 — this section: the actual hearing procedure, costs and enforcement of the Supreme Court's order.

Who does it apply to?

It applies to both sides of a tax dispute — the taxpayer (assessee) and the Income-tax Department (Principal Chief Commissioner / Chief Commissioner / Principal Commissioner / Commissioner). Whoever loses at the High Court and gets a fitness certificate under Section 367 can invoke the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, and Section 368 then controls how that hearing runs for either party.

Key conditions and practical points

• No fresh facts: The Supreme Court, like the High Court, decides questions of law, not questions of fact. You cannot re-argue how much income you earned; you can only argue how the law should be interpreted.
• Certificate is the gateway: Section 368 procedure is triggered only after a valid Section 367 appeal. Without a High Court fitness certificate (or Supreme Court special leave), there is no hearing to conduct.
• Costs risk: Because costs are discretionary, a taxpayer who loses may be ordered to bear the Department's costs, and vice versa. This is a real financial consideration before pursuing a Supreme Court appeal.
• Binding effect: A Supreme Court ruling is the law of the land under Article 141 of the Constitution and binds all lower authorities, so the recomputation under Section 365(10) must strictly follow it.

How it interacts with related sections

Section 368 is procedural glue. It relies on Section 367 for the right to appeal, on Section 365(10) for the machinery to give effect to the result, and it complements Section 370 (execution of costs awarded by the Supreme Court). The equivalent under the old Income-tax Act, 1961 was Section 262 (hearing before Supreme Court), with Section 261 being the counterpart to the new Section 367. The 2025 Act simply renumbers and modernises this scheme without changing the substance.

Practical implications for a normal taxpayer

For most individuals and small businesses, a Supreme Court income-tax appeal is rare and expensive — usually pursued only in high-value or precedent-setting disputes. Section 368 matters to you mainly because it guarantees a predictable, CPC-based procedure, protects your right to a fair hearing, and ensures that once the Supreme Court rules, the tax authorities are legally bound to recompute your liability accordingly. Before going this far, weigh the litigation cost, the discretionary-cost risk, and the strength of your legal (not factual) question.