← All Phrases

“Section 249(4)(b)”

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

The decision most relied on for Section 249(4)(b) is Hotel Sai Siddi (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (13 Taxmann.com 155), cited in 14 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 249(4)(b)

Hotel Sai Siddi (P) Ltd. v. DCIT
13 Taxmann.com 155 · 2011 · Reported
14
citing judgments

An assessee's appeal should be admitted if they incurred a loss and were therefore not liable to pay advance tax as required by section 249(4)(b). In such cases, the appeal should be decided on its merits by the CIT(A).

Vishnusharan Chandravanshi v. ITO
161 Taxmann.com 803 · 2024 · Reported
13
citing judgments

An assessee is not obligated to compute and pay advance tax under sections 208 and 209 if they have no taxable income. Consequently, an appeal should not be dismissed for non-payment of advance tax in such circumstances.

Judgments citing Section 249(4)(b)

Golden Rosaceae Realtors, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Kalyan

In the result, the present Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1580/MUM/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2024

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Piyush ChhajedFor Respondent: Mrs. Beena Santosh
Section 144Section 147Section 249(4)(b)Section 43C

income or transactions during the relevant assessment year and hence the question of payment of advance tax does not arise as required in section 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred ... outset, submitted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the Appeal on technical grounds the appeal was not maintainable as the provisions contained in Section 249(4)(b) of the Act were not complied with without examining submissions made by the Appellant on merits challenging the additions made by the Assessing

Karamshibhai Meghjibhai Patel, Anand vs. The ITO, Ward-1(3)(4) (Previously the ITO, Ward-3, Navsari), Petlad

ITA 258/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 234ASection 249(4)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 45

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Hardev Raj, Sirsa vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Sirsa

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

ITA 197/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Lalit Mohan, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 156Section 249(4)(b)

Centre (NFAC), New Delhi dated 22.11.2023 has erred both in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal of the appellant by invoking section 249(4)(b) of the Act is not in accordance with law and therefore invalid, illegal and deserves to be quashed as such. 1.1 That

Vidya Samiti Arya Samaj, Jaipur vs. ITO, Exemption - 1, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 885/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Khandelwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 10Section 115BSection 139Section 144Section 147Section 154Section 249(4)Section 250

been filed by the appellant for the assessment year. No whether an amount equal to the amount of advance tax as per section 249(4)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 has been paid 3.2. As per provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act, where no return

Vidya Samiti Arya Samaj, Jaipur vs. ITO, Exemption - 1, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 884/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Khandelwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 10Section 115BSection 139Section 144Section 147Section 154Section 249(4)Section 250

been filed by the appellant for the assessment year. No whether an amount equal to the amount of advance tax as per section 249(4)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 has been paid 3.2. As per provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act, where no return

Madhumita Das, Kolkata vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

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

ITA 2126/MUM/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Smt. Renu Jauhrimadhumita Das V/S. National Faceless Appeal 4F, Capricorn Jewels, 159 बनाम Centre, Delhi Sitalatala Road, Opposite Harendranath Boys School, Sahapur, Kolkata स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Alxps8781D Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Ameya ShenoyFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 144Section 144CSection 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 50C

dismissed the same on the ground that the assessee was liable to pay advance tax as per the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act. Observing that the assessee had not filed return of income and also not paid the requisite amount of advance tax, the appeal

Jisna John, Kallur vs. Income Tax Officer, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 899/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 144Section 147Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year

Hira Singh Son of Sh. Kulwant Singh Village Iraq Post Office Takhra Machhiwara District Ludhiana, Punjab vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-5, Khanna, Punjab

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

ITA 228/CHANDI/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Aug 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 228/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 बनाम Hira Singh The Ito, S/O Shri Kulwant Singh, Ward-5, Village I Raq Khanna Post Office Takhra Machhiwara District Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Fotps5351Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Danish Abdullah, Jcit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.08.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2024 आदेश/Order Per Sanjay Garg:

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Danish Abdullah, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 2(14)Section 249(4)(b)

dismissing the appeal of the Assessee by invoking the provisions of ITA No. 228-Chd-2024 Hira Singh, Ludhiana 2 Section 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') on account of non-deposit of the advance tax. 3. We have heard the rival contentions

Mahesh Chand, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Faridabad

In the result both the appeals being ITA no

ITA 1600/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 10Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 69A

order passed U/s 250 is bad in law as the Honorable CIT(A) rejected the appeal on the basis of provisions of Section 249(4)(b) mentioning that assessee has not paid advance tax which was payable and ignored the assessee's Contention that his Income is not taxable hence

Mahesh Chand, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Faridabad

In the result both the appeals being ITA no

ITA 1599/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 10Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 69A

order passed U/s 250 is bad in law as the Honorable CIT(A) rejected the appeal on the basis of provisions of Section 249(4)(b) mentioning that assessee has not paid advance tax which was payable and ignored the assessee's Contention that his Income is not taxable hence

Alka Singhai, Bhopal vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 287/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2013-14 Smt. Alka Singhai, Income-Tax Officer, H.No.A-55, Bda Colony, Delhi बनाम/ Kohefiza, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Acnps5162L Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 13.08.2024

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)

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

Sadhna Agarwal, Ghaziabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(4), Ghaziabad

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 960/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)

record. The learned CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal, inter alia, by observing as under: “As per the provisions of the section 249(4)(b) of the Act, the appeal shall not be admitted, unless the appellant has paid an amount equal to the amount of advance tax which

Banyan Tree Diagnostics and Research Centre, R T Nagar vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 595/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeybanyan Tree Diagnositc & Ito, Ward - 6(3)(1) Research Centre Bmtc Building No. 10, 1St Main, 1St Cross Koramangala Vs. Bangalore 560095 Devegowda Road, R.T. Nagar Bangalore 560032 Pan – Aapfb7186F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Sridhar, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 11.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.08.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M.

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE “C” BENCH, BANGALORE Before Shri Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member and Shri Keshav Dubey

Ankit Sharma, Tulsidas Marg, Barwani (M.P.) vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Sendhwa, Aayakar Bhawan, A.B. Road, Sendhwa, District-Barwani

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 246/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Indore09 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2015-16 Shri Ankit Sharma, Income-Tax Officer, 5,Tulsidas Marg, Ward Sendhwa, Gali No. 1, Distt. Barwani बनाम/ Ward No. 20, Vs. Barwani. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Hgzps8737L Assessee By Shri Kunal Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.08.2024

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)

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 ... observing that there was a non-compliance of Page 2 of 7 Shri Ankit Sharma, Barwani. ITA No. 246/Ind/2024 – A.Y. 2015-16 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 considered

Apex Hospital and Trauma Center, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward -1(1), Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1262/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Agarwal,CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 209Section 210Section 234CSection 249(4)(b)

appeal filed by the appellant before him was not admitable due to non-payment of advance tax in terms of the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act, ignoring the fact that no amount of advance was payable by the appellant as neither there was any admitted income ... vide order dated 25.01.2024 refused to admit the appeal on the ground that advance tax payable by it in terms of provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act was not paid by the assessee. 8. Aggrieved further, the assessee is in appeal before

Narayani Trading, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 36(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1015/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usassessment Year 2017-18

For Respondent: Sh. Jatender Kumar Kale, Sr.DR
Section 144Section 147Section 249Section 249(4)(b)

assessee has challenged the order passed by the CIT(A) denying to admit the appeal of the assessee on the contours of Section 249(4)(b) of the Act and thus declined to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 2 3. Briefly stated, the case of the assessee was reopened under ... amount of advance tax which is prerequisite for admission of appeal in the case of non-filer assessee in terms of Section 249(4)(b) of the Act. The CIT(A) accordingly declined to admit the appeal of the assessee and dismissed the appeal in limine without adjudication on merits

Madhulika Mishra, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 5(1)(5), Noida

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

ITA 1113/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usvs. Ito Madhulika Mishra B-1501, Tower-4, Enchante, Ward – 5(1)(5) Lodha New Cuffe Parade, Noida Wadala East, Mumbai-400 022 Pan No. Asppm 9325 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ganesh Raj Gopalen, C.A. & Shri Kirit Vasan. R. C.A. Revenue By Shri Jatender Kumar Kale, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 01.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.08.2024 Order Per Pradip Kumar Kedia, Am :

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 249Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)

Madhulika Mishra vs. ITO A.Y. 2017-18 ("CIT(A)/NFAC") erred in holding that the Appellant did not fulfill the conditions mentioned in section 249(4)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the "Act") with respect to the appeal filed by the Appellant under section 246A ... first Appellate Order, it seen that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee summarily on account of non-compliance of Section 249(4)(b) of the Act alleging the non-payment of advances tax liability and thereby held that the appeal before

Kammela Srinivasara Rao, Tenali vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tenali

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 73/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.73/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Kammela Srinivasara Rao, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, D.No. 7-14-9, Harikrishna Ward-1, Medical Agencies, Battavari Tenali. Street, Ganganammapet, Tenali, Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Akzpk3519M (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/06/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 31/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 208Section 234B(1)Section 249(4)(b)Section 271ASection 69A

NAFC. 3. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine by invoking the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act by observing as under: “3.2. As per the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act, where no return ... Revenue Authorities and argued in support of the same. The Ld. DR further submitted that as per the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act, it is mandatory that the assessee has to pay the tax equivalent to the advance tax payable by the assessee in order

Annamma Joseph, Pathanamthitta vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, Kerala

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

ITA 233/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniannamma Joseph Ito-2(5) 1088, Zion Villa Bhopal Thottapuzhassery, Pullad S.O. Vs. Pathanamthitta Kerala (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adlpj3534G Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2024

Section 147Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)

249(4), No appeal shall be admitted unless at the time of filing of the appeal, the prescribed conditions are satisfied. As per section 249(4)(b) of the Act, the appeal shall not be admitted, unless the appellant has paid an amount equal to the amount of advance ... account and investment made by the assesse in bonds/debentures. Therefore, the issue of payment of any advance tax as per the provisions of section 249(4)(b) does not arise as held by this tribunal in case of Deepak Khandelwal vs. ITO Sehore in ITANo.120/Ind/2024 vide order dated 05.07.2024 held

Mr. Muppuri Damodar, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(5), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the above observations

ITA 1231/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeymuppuri Damodar The Income Tax Officer #26/1, 7Th Main, Sb Colony Ward - 7(2)(5) Bsk Iii Stage, 7Th Block Vs. Bengaluru Bengaluru 560085 Pan – Ahppd9356E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 25.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 09.02.2024 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2003-24/1060723928(1) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.. 2. The Learned Cit[A] Is Not Justified In Dismissing The Appeal As Not- Admitted On The Ground That The Applicable Advance Tax Has Not Been Paid By The Appellant Before The Filing Of The Present Appeal Under The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel
Section 148Section 149Section 234ASection 249Section 250Section 69A

file any return of income and that the appellant was also not liable to pay any advance-tax and therefore, the provisions of section 249[4][b] was not attracted under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 3. The order of re-assessment ... reason that he had failed to satisfy the conditions contemplated in Section 249(4) of the Act. 12. Admittedly, as per section 249(4)(b) of the Act, in a case where no return of income has been filed by the assessee, then his appeal shall be maintainable before