Income Tax Reference to the High Court Division in Bangladesh: Law, Cost, Procedure and 2026 Changes

The controlling provision is section 293 of the Income Tax Act, 2023. It authorises the assessee or Commissioner to refer a question of law arising from a Tribunal order—not to reopen the entire case as a second factual appeal.

What Is an Income Tax Reference?

An Income Tax Reference is different from an ordinary appeal.

Section 293 provides that an assessee or the Commissioner may, within the prescribed period, refer to the High Court Division a question of law arising out of an order of the Taxes Appellate Tribunal.

This distinction is fundamental.

The High Court Division is not normally asked to conduct the entire tax assessment again or simply decide whether it would have reached a different factual conclusion from the Tribunal.

The central inquiry is:

Examples may include interpretation of a provision of the Income Tax Act, application of the wrong statutory test, taxation without legal authority, disregard of a mandatory provision, or another legally identifiable error arising from the Tribunal's decision.

By contrast, a mere disagreement over the weight of evidence, estimation of sales, quantum of expenses or another purely factual conclusion will not ordinarily be sufficient.

Which Law Governs an Income Tax Reference in Bangladesh?

The principal provisions are contained in Part 20, Chapter II of the Income Tax Act, 2023:

Sections 293–295 therefore create the statutory route from the Taxes Appellate Tribunal to the Supreme Court.

The procedure should also be read together with the Income-tax Rules, 1984 where those rules remain consistent with the 2023 Act.

Section 344(2)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 2023 preserves rules, orders, directions, notifications, policies and other legal instruments made under the repealed Income-tax Ordinance, 1984, so far as they remain consistent with the new Act and until they are repealed or amended.

Rule 29 of the Income-tax Rules, 1984 contains the traditional form for an application for reference to the High Court Division. The old form naturally refers to former section 160 of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1984, so any present application must be adapted to the Income Tax Act, 2023 and section 293.

What Makes a Good “Question of Law”?

This is often the most important part of the entire Reference Application.

The applicant should not merely restate the grounds previously argued before the Tribunal. Each proposed question should identify a legal issue arising from the Tribunal's order.

A question may potentially arise where the Tribunal:

The drafting should connect the legal question directly with the relevant portion of the Tribunal's decision.

Is an Income Tax Reference the Same as a Writ Petition?

No.

A Reference under section 293 is a specific statutory remedy arising from an order of the Taxes Appellate Tribunal and is confined to questions of law arising from that order.

A writ petition under Article 102 of the Constitution belongs to a different constitutional jurisdiction.

In a normal tax dispute that has proceeded through the statutory appellate system to the Tribunal, the existence and scope of the statutory reference remedy should therefore be carefully examined before considering any other proceeding.

Whether constitutional jurisdiction is available in an exceptional case depends on the particular jurisdictional, procedural or public-law issue involved and requires separate legal analysis.

The consolidated statute records that the 10% rule, deletion of the former higher tier and deletion of the former waiver provision took effect on 1 July 2026 under section 145 of the Finance Act, 2026.

The Major 2026 Change: Pre-Deposit Reduced to 10%

The most important recent development is the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2026 (Act No. 96 of 2026).

Before the amendment, section 293 required:

• 15% of the relevant tax difference where the tax demand did not exceed Tk 10 lakh; and
• 25% where the tax demand exceeded Tk 10 lakh.

The former law also allowed the NBR, upon application, to modify or waive the payment requirement, except the statutory application fee. The official Authentic English Text published in 2025 records that previous position.

Section 145 of the Finance Act, 2026 changed this framework with effect from 1 July 2026. The current law now requires payment of:

The former clause prescribing the 25% rate was deleted, and former section 293(2), which contained the NBR waiver/modification power, was also deleted.

Previous Law vs Current Law

The amendment substantially reduces the immediate financial burden in many higher-value tax disputes, although removal of the former NBR waiver power is also significant.

What Is “Admitted Tax Liability”?

Understanding this term is necessary because the 10% deposit is not calculated on the entire amount of tax appearing in the Tribunal's order.

Section 2(89A) defines “admitted tax liability” as the payable income-tax liability computed under section 173, 174 or 181, as applicable, on the basis of the return or revised return filed by the taxpayer.

The basic calculation under the current section 293 is therefore:

Tax determined on the basis of Tribunal order – Admitted tax liability = Relevant tax difference

The assessee must then pay:

10% × Relevant tax difference

and also pay the Tk 2,000 statutory application fee.

How Much Does It Cost to File an Income Tax Reference?

For clients, it is useful to distinguish between statutory filing requirements and other professional or procedural expenses.

Statutory Amount

The 10% payment should not be confused with a lawyer's fee or an ordinary court fee. It is a statutory tax payment required as a condition for an assessee's reference.

Examples under the Current Law

These examples exclude advocates' professional fees and other variable expenses.

Example of the Effect of the 2026 Amendment

Suppose the Tribunal-determined tax is Tk 50 lakh and admitted tax liability is Tk 10 lakh.

The relevant difference is therefore Tk 40 lakh.

Under the previous 25% regime, where the higher threshold applied:

Tk 40 lakh × 25% = Tk 10 lakh

Under the current regime:

Tk 40 lakh × 10% = Tk 4 lakh

The statutory pre-deposit in this example is therefore reduced by Tk 6 lakh, although the Tk 2,000 application fee continues separately.

Section 293 requires filing within 90 days from receipt of the Tribunal order, permits an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, and requires the application and specified certified records in three sets.

What Is the Deadline for Filing?

A Reference Application must ordinarily be filed within 90 days from the date of receipt of the Tribunal's order communicated under section 292.

This makes the date on which the Tribunal order was actually received extremely important.

Section 333 also provides rules for calculating limitation. In particular:

Can Delay Be Condoned?

Yes.

Section 293(7) expressly applies section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 to a Reference Application.

Accordingly, where the 90-day period has expired, an applicant may seek condonation by establishing sufficient cause for the delay.

However, limitation should never be treated casually. The safer approach is to calculate the filing deadline immediately upon receipt of the Tribunal order and prepare the reference within the statutory period.

What Documents Are Required?

Section 293(3) expressly requires the application to be submitted in three sets.

The statutory documentation is as follows:

The documents relied upon should normally come from the existing tax record. A Reference Application is not intended to become an entirely new evidentiary trial.

Who Should Be Made Respondent?

Section 293(4) expressly deals with the parties.

Where the assessee is the applicant, the Commissioner is the respondent.

Where the Commissioner is the applicant, the assessee is the respondent.

Therefore, an ordinary statutory reference under section 293 should not be drafted simply as though the Taxes Appellate Tribunal itself were the opposing party.

The relevant Commissioner of Taxes should be correctly identified from the assessment and appellate record.

A reference does not itself suspend collection. A separate stay request should be considered immediately where recovery action is likely. The statutory route may continue to the Appellate Division only where the High Court Division certifies the case as fit for appeal.

Does Filing a Reference Automatically Stop Tax Recovery?

No.

This is one of the most important practical points for taxpayers.

Section 294(4) expressly provides that notwithstanding the filing of a reference, tax remains payable in accordance with the assessment unless recovery has been stayed by the High Court Division.

Therefore:

Filing the Reference Application ≠ automatic stay of tax recovery.

Where recovery proceedings, bank attachment or other enforcement action is possible, the taxpayer should consider whether a separate application for stay is necessary.

The grounds for stay will depend on the particular facts, including the legal question raised, the balance of convenience, recovery circumstances and potential prejudice.

How Does the High Court Decide the Reference?

Section 294 requires a Reference Application to be heard by a Bench consisting of not fewer than two Judges.

The High Court Division determines the questions of law raised, provides reasons for its decision and sends the judgment to the Appellate Tribunal.

The Tribunal must thereafter make the orders necessary to dispose of the tax matter in conformity with the High Court Division's judgment.

The High Court therefore answers the legal controversy; the consequential implementation returns to the Tribunal.

Costs of the reference are within the discretion of the Court.

Can the Case Go to the Appellate Division?

Yes, but not as an unrestricted automatic appeal.

Section 295 provides for an appeal to the Appellate Division from a judgment delivered under section 294 where the High Court Division certifies that the case is fit for appeal.

The broad litigation route can therefore be illustrated as:

Tax Assessment → First Appeal → Taxes Appellate Tribunal → High Court Division Reference → Appellate Division, where legally available

Another Important 2026 Development: ADR After a Tribunal Order

The Finance Act, 2026 also amended sections 297 and 298 concerning Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”).

The amended language now expressly extends the statutory ADR framework to a tax-assessment dispute after an order of the Taxes Appellate Tribunal, subject to the provisions governing ADR.

Where a tax dispute is already pending before a Division of the Supreme Court, section 298 requires permission of the Court before an ADR application is made. A dispute already brought through a writ petition is excluded from ADR under that provision.

This means that after the 2026 amendments, a taxpayer considering a High Court Reference should also examine, where appropriate, whether the statutory ADR framework offers a commercially sensible alternative.

ADR and a Reference are nevertheless fundamentally different procedures: one seeks negotiated statutory resolution, while the other asks the High Court Division to determine a question of law.

Recent decisions published by the Supreme Court of Bangladesh reinforce the distinction between a factual disagreement and a genuine legal question. The cases should be read for that jurisdictional principle, not as the source of the current 10% rule.

What Does Recent High Court Division Case Law Show?

Several Income Tax Reference judgments uploaded by the Supreme Court in September 2026 illustrate the boundary between a question of fact and a question of law.

These cases arose principally under the former Income-tax Ordinance, 1984. They should therefore not be used for the current section 293 pre-deposit requirement. They remain instructive, however, regarding the judicial nature and scope of an Income Tax Reference.

Selected Recent Decisions

The practical lesson is important:

The strength of a Reference Application often depends less on how many grounds are stated and more on whether a precise and sustainable question of law can be identified.