← All Phrases

“Section 249(4)(b)”

Section References (mined)Section 249Section 249(4)(b)329 judgments

ANEEMONI NAGA RAJU,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 2074/HYD/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Mar 2026AY 2020-2021
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 249(4)(b)Section 69A

nCIT(A) on the following grounds of appeal:\n1. The order of the Id. CIT(A) dated 30.09.2025 dismissing the appeal\nsolely under Section 249(4)(b) without providing an opportunity to seek\nexemption and without issuing a show-cause notice is not correct and\nis mechanical and violates natural ... filed his return of income had failed to pay the\namount of advance tax as required per the mandate of Section 249(4)(b)\nof the Act, declined to admit the appeal by treating the same as\ninfructuous. For the sake of clarity, the observations

VANDANA SINGH,NOIDA vs. ITO 5(2)(5) NOIDA, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2816/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarvandana Singh, Ito, 5(2)(5), 302, Abhinav Apartments, Noida, U.P. Vasundhra Enclave V. Delhi-110096 Pan-Dcrps8979A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 69

before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee by treating the same as un-admitted by invoking provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act, as in view of ld. CIT(A) the assessee having not filed the return of income has also not deposited ... dismissing the first appeal of the assessee u/s 250 of the Act by treating the same as un-admitted under provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act because in view of ld. CIT(A) the advance tax was not paid by the assessee. It was submitted that

SHRI TARIQ AHMAD DAR,ANANTNAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, UDHAMPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 422/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Mohd. Iqbal Untoo, C.A
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 210Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 69A

fact of non - filing of regular return , in response to notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, thereby attracting the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act. Brief facts emerging from records are that the assessee has deposited cash (SBN) 6. during demonetization period amounting

MEHAL SINGH,JHALLIAN KHURD,RUPNAGAR vs. ITO WARD-2(2), ROPAR, ROPAR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 806/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: The Cit(A), All The Notices & The Impugned Order Were Communicated At The Old Email Address Of The Earlier Counsel & Not At The Updated Email Address Furnished In The Income-Tax Records. Consequently, The Assessee Remained Unaware Of The Dismissal Of The Appeal & Came To Know About It Only When Recovery Proceedings Were Initiated. Immediately Thereafter He Consulted His Counsel & Steps Were Taken To File The Present Appeal. It Has Further Been Submitted That The Assessee Is A Senior Citizen Suffering From Hypertension & Diabetes & Due To Medical Complications

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 249Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)

appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) did not examine the additions on merits and dismissed the appeal in limine by invoking section 249(4)(b) on the ground that since no return of income had been filed, the assessee was required to pay an advance tax equivalent amount before filing

BALRAJ SINGH,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. ITO-I(5), SHAHJAHANPUR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 857/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 249(4)(b)Section 253(3)

present case, the (C) appeal was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) in limine, without going into the merits of the appeal, invoking section 249(4)(b) of I.T. Act. On perusal of the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A), it is obvious that there was no admitted ... perused. It is found that there was no admitted tax payable by the assessee for the year under consideration. Therefore, the provisions of section 249(4)(b) I.T. Act were not attracted. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) is directed to admit the appeal and adjudicate the same on merits

REKHA KHANDELWAL,RAJGARH vs. ITO WARD RAJGARH, RAJGARH

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 649/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2014-15 Rekha Khandelwal, Income-Tax Officer, Ward No.2, Near Chote Ward Rajgarh Hanuman Mandir, बनाम/ Rajgarh Bus Stand Vs. S.O. Rajgarh, (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Eljpk1548B Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 253(5)Section 68

first- appeal. The CIT(A) treated assessee’s first-appeal as deficient on the footing of non-payment of tax as required by section 249(4)(b) and accordingly dismissed assessee’s appeal as non-admitted. Now, the assessee has come before us challenging the orders of lower-authorities ... additions of equal amount. In such a situation, the CIT(A) was not correct in observing that there was a non-compliance of section 249(4)(b) as held by ITAT, Indore in Shri Pushpendra Singh Chouhan Vs. ITO, ITA No. 122/Ind/2024, order dated 24.06.2024 as under: “7. We have

DHARMENDRA RIKHAVCHAND SHAH, HUF,HIMATNAGAR vs. NFAC, DELHI PRESENT HURIS.THE ITO, WARD-1, HIMATNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2680/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151A

circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal by invalidity invoking the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act without considering the fact that the appellant had filed original return of income. 2.1 In law and on the facts ... Appeals) did not go into the merits of the additions. The appeal was dismissed in limine by invoking the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act on the reasoning that the assessee had not filed a return of income in response to notice under section

PRASHANT JUGALKISHORE RATHI,AKOLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, AKOLA

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 29/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Prashant Jugalkishore Rathi Ito, Ward–3, Akola Laxmi Nagar Shrinath Apartment, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Murtizapur Gaurakshan Road, Road, Maharashtra – 444107. Maharashtra – 444004. [Pan: Aocpr1040K] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Mrs. Shikha Loya, Ca Revenue By Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit–Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.02.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh:

Section 144Section 249Section 249(4)(b)Section 250(6)Section 254(1)Section 41(1)

substantial ground of appeal tax relates to dismissal of appeal by ld CIT(A) for the want of admitted tax lability under section 249(4)(b) of Income Tax Act (Act). 2. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. At the outset of hearing ... taking view that the assessee has not deposited Prashant Jugalkishore Rathi payment of tax equal to amount of advance tax as per Section 249 (4)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee was not having

SHREE GAJANAN MAHILA GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1, SATARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3161/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.3161/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Shree Gajanan Mahila Vs. Income Tax Officer, Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Ward-1, Satara Patsanstha Maryadit, A/P. Vahagaon, Tal. Karad, Satara 415110 Maharashtra Pan : Aahas3528D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Shahakar
Section 147Section 249(4)(b)Section 250(6)

Assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) but the same has been dismissed in limine for non deposit of advance tax as referred in section 249(4)(b) of the Act. We note that ld.CIT(A) in para 3.5 of the impugned order has referred to the word “Not applicable” mentioned

BASHIR AHMAD RAH,REHPORA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SRINAGAR

The appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 176/ASR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar03 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Shri Udayan Dasguptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 175 & 176/Asr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2016-17 Bashir Ahmad Rah, The Ito, Khudwani Wanpoh, V Ward 1, Jammu & Kashmir S Srinagar 192331 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Cehpr7830E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Virtual Hearing Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Farhat Khan, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2026

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Farhat Khan, CIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 210Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

advance tax ( admitted tax ) coupled with the fact that no return has been filed for any of the years , triggering the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act , in absence of any application , praying for waiver or exemption of pre deposit. 6. The claim of the assessee ... such he prays for an opportunity to explain his case before the Ld first appellate authority both on the technical issue of section 249(4)(b) and also on merits. 8 The Ld DR relied on the order of the Ld CIT(A) and submitted that in absence

BASHIR AHMAD RAH,REHPORA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SRINAGAR

The appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 175/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar03 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Shri Udayan Dasguptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 175 & 176/Asr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2016-17 Bashir Ahmad Rah, The Ito, Khudwani Wanpoh, V Ward 1, Jammu & Kashmir S Srinagar 192331 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Cehpr7830E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Virtual Hearing Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Farhat Khan, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2026

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Farhat Khan, CIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 210Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

advance tax ( admitted tax ) coupled with the fact that no return has been filed for any of the years , triggering the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act , in absence of any application , praying for waiver or exemption of pre deposit. 6. The claim of the assessee ... such he prays for an opportunity to explain his case before the Ld first appellate authority both on the technical issue of section 249(4)(b) and also on merits. 8 The Ld DR relied on the order of the Ld CIT(A) and submitted that in absence

MADHUKAR GANPAT DHAKWAL,MANGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5, NEW PANVEL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2434/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kant Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.2434 & 2418/Pun/2025 धििाारण वषा /Assessment Year: 2018-19 Madhukar Ganpat Ito, Ward 8(5), Dhakwal, Raigad 1/B At Tilore Post Vs. Vighawali Tal Mangaon, Wighawali B.O Tilore, Raigarh Maharashtra Pan-Bfopd7627G अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By: Ca Hiral D. Sejpal & Ankita P. Gorde Department By: Smt. Sonal L Sonkavde, Addl-Cit Date Of Hearing: 03-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 16-03-2026 आदेश/Order Per Shri Vinay Bhamore: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Same Order Dated 25.08.2025 Passed By Ld. [Cit(A)] Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Respondent: Smt. Sonal L Sonkavde
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 50C

order the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT appeal. Since the assessee has not paid any advance tax as contemplated under section 249(4)(b) of the IT act learned CIT appeal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without admitting the same for adjudication ... observing as under:- 5. Against the said order the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT (A), however, the Ld. CIT(A) invoked section 249(4)(b) of the Act holding that appeal of the assessee is not admitted because the assessee has not paid the taxes or advance

MADHUKAR GANPAT DHAKWAL,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 8(5), RAIGAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2418/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kant Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.2434 & 2418/Pun/2025 धििाारण वषा /Assessment Year: 2018-19 Madhukar Ganpat Ito, Ward 8(5), Dhakwal, Raigad 1/B At Tilore Post Vs. Vighawali Tal Mangaon, Wighawali B.O Tilore, Raigarh Maharashtra Pan-Bfopd7627G अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By: Ca Hiral D. Sejpal & Ankita P. Gorde Department By: Smt. Sonal L Sonkavde, Addl-Cit Date Of Hearing: 03-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 16-03-2026 आदेश/Order Per Shri Vinay Bhamore: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Same Order Dated 25.08.2025 Passed By Ld. [Cit(A)] Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Respondent: Smt. Sonal L Sonkavde
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 50C

order the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT appeal. Since the assessee has not paid any advance tax as contemplated under section 249(4)(b) of the IT act learned CIT appeal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without admitting the same for adjudication ... observing as under:- 5. Against the said order the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT (A), however, the Ld. CIT(A) invoked section 249(4)(b) of the Act holding that appeal of the assessee is not admitted because the assessee has not paid the taxes or advance

NAROTTAMBHAI CHHOTUBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1185/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Surat30 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 144Section 147Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

raised following grounds of appeal:- “1) The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the basis of Section 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act, on the ground that the assessee had not paid any advance tax, without duly considering the facts stated ... appeal in limine holding that since the assessee had not filed return of income and had not paid advance tax as required under section 249(4)(b) of the Act, the appeal was not maintainable. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee

HEMENDRA KUMAR MENARIA,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), UDAIPUR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 769/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

Section 249(4)(b)Section 271A(1)

subject year, the first appellate authority could not have held that he had failed to comply with the statutory conditions contemplated in section 249(4)(b). Meaning thereby that the order of the NFAC is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is restored to the file

HEMENDRA KUMAR MENARIA,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), UDAIPUR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 768/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

Section 249(4)(b)Section 271A(1)

subject year, the first appellate authority could not have held that he had failed to comply with the statutory conditions contemplated in section 249(4)(b). Meaning thereby that the order of the NFAC is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is restored to the file

HEMENDRA KUMAR MENARIA,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), UDAIPUR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 767/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

Section 249(4)(b)Section 271A(1)

subject year, the first appellate authority could not have held that he had failed to comply with the statutory conditions contemplated in section 249(4)(b). Meaning thereby that the order of the NFAC is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is restored to the file

HEMENDRA KUMAR MENARIA,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), UDAIPUR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 766/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

Section 249(4)(b)Section 271A(1)

subject year, the first appellate authority could not have held that he had failed to comply with the statutory conditions contemplated in section 249(4)(b). Meaning thereby that the order of the NFAC is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is restored to the file

ROSHAN ALI,PROPRIETOR M/S SAGAR DAIRY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3)(5), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 125/DDN/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Roshan Ali, Proprietor Vs. Income Tax Officer, M/S. Sagar Dairy, Ward-1(3)(5), Dargah Pahari Gate Near Roorkee Pani Ki Tanki, Piran Kaliyar, Roorkee, Uttarakhand Pan :Bsepa8697Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr

Section 249(4)(b)Section 250(6)

with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that the learned CIT(A) has refused to admit the assessee’s appeal under section 249(4)(b) for non-payment of advance tax than having adjudicated on merits under section 250(6) of the Act, requiring him to frame points

RAKESH KUMAR,BARABANKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(5), BARABANKI

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 438/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Rakesh Kumar V. The Income Tax Officer Naka Paisar Ward 5(5) Deen Dayal Nagar Barabanki Barabanki (U.P) Tan/Pan:Awkpk2247F (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.12.2023, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Deposited Rs.11,40,000/- During The Demonetization Period, I.E., From 09.11.2016 To 30.12.2016 In His Bank Account No.752530110000014 Maintained With Bank Of India, Subeha Bazar, Haidergarh. Thereafter, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Issued Statutory Notices To The Assessee, Requiring The Assessee To Explain The Source Of Cash Deposits In His Bank Account. Since There Was No Compliance From The Side Of The

For Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 144Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 68

preceding years there was no liability cast on the assessee to file the return of income hence, there being no default under section 249(4)(b) of the Act, the order passed by the CIT(A) is bad in law, be set aside. 03. Because the CIT(A) has erred

Showing 1–20 of 329 · Page 1 of 17

...