← 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)

Mr. Ravindra Karadahalli Vivek, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1129/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri Abhishek Murthy R., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 142Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(a)Section 249(4)(b)Section 271(1)(b)

However, before the CIT(A), assessee had made detailed submissions. The CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by invoking section 249(4)(b) of the Act. Assessee submitted that he is not liable for long-term capital gains since the property sold was agricultural land. Assessee ... condoned. 7. However, before the CIT(A), assessee had made detailed submissions. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by invoking section 249(4)(b) of the Act. Assessee submitted that it is not liable for as it is involved in promoting Khadi Udyog and is involved

Mr. Ravindra Karadahalli Vivek, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1128/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri Abhishek Murthy R., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 142Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(a)Section 249(4)(b)Section 271(1)(b)

However, before the CIT(A), assessee had made detailed submissions. The CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by invoking section 249(4)(b) of the Act. Assessee submitted that he is not liable for long-term capital gains since the property sold was agricultural land. Assessee ... condoned. 7. However, before the CIT(A), assessee had made detailed submissions. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by invoking section 249(4)(b) of the Act. Assessee submitted that it is not liable for as it is involved in promoting Khadi Udyog and is involved

Shish Pali, Noida vs. ITO Ward 3(4), Noida

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3400/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

assessee has failed to pay the amount equal to the amount of advance tax, which she was required to pay, in terms of section 249(4)(b) of the Act. Alleging non- compliance with the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act, learned first appellate authority dismissed

Shish Pali, Noida vs. ITO Ward 3(4), Noida

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3399/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

assessee has failed to pay the amount equal to the amount of advance tax, which she was required to pay, in terms of section 249(4)(b) of the Act. Alleging non- compliance with the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act, learned first appellate authority dismissed

Ranjitsingh Premsingh Rawal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 41(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1482/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Ramchandran, A/RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. D/R
Section 249(4)(b)Section 68Section 69A

filed the return of income and, further, the appellant has also not paid the amount equal to advance tax as required under Section 249(4)(b). 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the appellant

Darpan Kanubhai Shah, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(4), Vadodara

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 123/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 123/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2018-19 बनाम बनाम बनाम बनाम Darpan Kanubhai Shah The Income-Tax Officer, C/O. Darpan Travels, Vs. Ward-3(1)(4), Near Ramji Mandir, Vadodara Madanzampa Road, Vadodara-390001 Pan : Agips 3405 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Samir Parikh, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 22/04/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 22.11.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Grounds Raised Are As Under :- “(1) The Learned Cit(Appeal) Is Not Correct In Holding That The Assessee Has Not Filed Return Of Income U/S 148. Consequently The Learned Cit (Appeal) Is Not Correct That The Appeal Is Not Liable To Be Admitted. (Ii) Alternatively Appeal Is Allowed By Set Aside The Order & Matter Referred Back To The Desk Of Hon. Cit For Reconsideration. Darpan Kanubhai Shah Vs. Ito Ay : 2018-19 2

For Appellant: Shri Samir Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 54B

holding that the assessee’s appeal is infructuous for not having paid advance tax as required in terms of Section 249(4)(b) of the Act. 6.1 The relevant provisions of Section 249(4)(b) of the Act are reproduced by the ld. CIT(A) in page No.4 ... filed his return of income Darpan Kanubhai Shah Vs. ITO AY : 2018-19 4 and the first condition for invoking the provisions of Section 249(4)(b) of the Act, therefore, was not satisfied. 7.2 He, thereafter, stated that the ld. CIT(A) had found the assessee to have

Deepak Khandelwal, Sehore vs. ITO, Sehore

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

ITA 120/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore05 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanideepak Khandelwal Ito J.P. Market, Narsullaganj Sehore Vs. Sehore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Agxpk7517R Assessee By Shri N.D. Patwa, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 05.07.2024

Section 139Section 144Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 294(4)(b)

dismissed the appeal of the assesse in limine as not admissible for want of payment of advance tax as per provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act. The assessee did not file any return of income u/s 139 of the Act as the income of the assesse ... dismissed the appeal of the assesse in para 3 as under: “3. Decision: 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 was payable

Aishani Consultants Pvt Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 2(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 3911/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Smt Rano Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

summary of the grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in invoking the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short] despite the fact that the provisions of this section are not applicable in the case

Niyati Sutaria James, Mumbai vs. ITO WD-23(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2264/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan (Jm) I.T.A. No. 2264/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17) Niyati Sutaria James Vs. Ito, Ward-23(2)(1) 302, Parimal Premises, Piramal Chambers, 17Th Road, Khar West, Parel, Mumbai- Mumbai-400052. 400012. Pan : Aaacd3816C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Nitesh Joshi Department By Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha Date Of Hearing 02.07.2024 Dateof Pronouncement 04.07.2024 O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran (Am) :-

Section 144Section 148Section 209Section 249(4)(b)Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “B” Bench, Mumbai. Before Shri B.R. BASKARAN (AM) & Shri RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (JM

Srisaithirumala Chitfunds India Private Limited, Warangal vs. ITO, Ward-1, Warangal

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

ITA 481/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 481/Hyd/2024 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Sri Saithirumala Chitfunds Income Tax Officer, India Private Limited, Vs. Ward-1, Bhupalpally Warangal [Pan : Aaucs6931K] अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent धििााररती द्वारा/Assessee By: Smt. S. Sandhya, Ar राजस्‍व द्वारा/Revenue By: Shri M. Naveen Kumar, Dr सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/06/2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 28/06/2024

For Appellant: Smt. S. Sandhya, ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Naveen Kumar, DR
Section 144Section 249(4)(b)

that the Ld. CIT(A) did not admit the appeal on the ground that the assessee did not comply with the provisions under section 249(4)(b) of the Act. Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee has got a meritorious case and is in possession of all the documents ... also that the Page 2 of 4 Ld. CIT(A) did not admit the appeal for non-compliance with section 249(4)(b) of the Act. 4. I have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. It is a fact that the assessment

Harsh Patel, Gram Padliya Tehsil Depalpurdi vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Indore

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

ITA 171/IND/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jun 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniharsh Patel Ito -1(1) Gram -Padliya Tehsil- Depalpur Indore Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bmfpp8078K Assessee By Shri Avinash Mandovara, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28 .06.2024

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

249(4)(b) of the Act in para 3 of the impugned order as under: “3. Decision: 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 ... dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine for want of payment of tax as per the provisions of Section 249(4)(b) of the Act. This is a case of reassessment framed by Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the ACT and therefore, there is no obligation

Ramdas Yadav, Hoshangabad vs. ITO-2 Itarsi, Itarsi

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

ITA 163/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniramdas Yadav, Ito -2 267 Malakhedi

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 149(4)(b)Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)

mentioned. The second part of the provision is applicable to the case of the appellant. Particulars of payment not mentioned pertains to Section 249(4)(b) of the Act, which is particulars of payment of advance tax as per the said provision. It is seen that the appellant ... applicable appellant for the Not assessment year, whether an amount equal to the amount of Applicable advance tax as per section 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act. 1961 has been paid As can be seen from the above, the appellant has stated "Not Applicable" in the above columns

Chakrapani Danam, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-22(6), Tambaram

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

ITA 1125/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri SP Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT
Section 139Section 148Section 249Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)

Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 23.02.2024. :- 2 -: 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal by observing as under: “2.8. 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 ... present appeal shall not be admitted. In the present appeal, it is held that the appellant has not complied with the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act and hence the appeal is not admitted and is also treated as dismissed.” 3. The Ld. A.R has argued that

Vasu Kumar Vaddi, Machilipatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Machilipatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee (ITA No

ITA 21/VIZ/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon‟Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon‟Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.20 & 21/Viz/2024 (धनधाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vasu Kumar Vaddi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 16/372-16-1, Ward-1, Valandapalem, Industrial Estate Machilipatnam. Road, Machilipatnam – 521002, Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Aifpv 6289 F (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri K. Siva Ram Kumar, Ar प्रत्याथीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनिाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04/06/2024 घोर्णाकीतारीख/Date Of : 25/06/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Pers. Balakrishnan:

For Appellant: Sri K. Siva Ram Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144B(1)(xi)Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 249(4)(b)Section 271Section 69A

NFAC found that the assessee has not filed any return of income and has also not paid 4 any advance tax as per section 249(4)(b) of the Act wherein the assessee has mentioned in Form-35, Sl. No. 9 “Not Applicable”. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, vide ... facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal for non- observance of section 249(4)(b) by the appellant since the appellant has disputed the entire tax levied in the 5 assessment and there was no undisputed tax liable to be paid

Vasu Kumar Vaddi, Machilipatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Machilipatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee (ITA No

ITA 20/VIZ/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon‟Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon‟Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.20 & 21/Viz/2024 (धनधाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vasu Kumar Vaddi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 16/372-16-1, Ward-1, Valandapalem, Industrial Estate Machilipatnam. Road, Machilipatnam – 521002, Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Aifpv 6289 F (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri K. Siva Ram Kumar, Ar प्रत्याथीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनिाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04/06/2024 घोर्णाकीतारीख/Date Of : 25/06/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Pers. Balakrishnan:

For Appellant: Sri K. Siva Ram Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144B(1)(xi)Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 249(4)(b)Section 271Section 69A

NFAC found that the assessee has not filed any return of income and has also not paid 4 any advance tax as per section 249(4)(b) of the Act wherein the assessee has mentioned in Form-35, Sl. No. 9 “Not Applicable”. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, vide ... facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal for non- observance of section 249(4)(b) by the appellant since the appellant has disputed the entire tax levied in the 5 assessment and there was no undisputed tax liable to be paid

Pushpendra Singh Chouhan, Sehore vs. ITO-Sehore, Sehore

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

ITA 122/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Pushpendra Singh Ito Chouhan, Sehore C/O Adv.Hitesh Chimnani, Ug-37 Trade Centre, Vs. 18 South Tukoganj, Near Hotel Crown Palace, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Cggps1953Q Assessee By Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Ms. Komal Wadhwani & Komal Kataria, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.06.2024 O R D E R

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)

however, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed on the ground that he has not paid the tax as per the provisions of Section 249(4)(b) of the Act. Thus CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine as the same was not admitted. 4. Before ... dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine for want of payment of tax as per the provisions of Section 249(4)(b) of the Act. This is a case of reassessment framed by Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the ACT and therefore, there is no obligation

Bhalagam Naidu Raja, Vellore vs. Iti Ward 3, Vellore

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

ITA 872/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 872/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Bhalagam Naidu Raja, The Income Tax Officer, 2/26, Melachakattu, Vs. Ward 3, Kalampathu Latheri, Vellore. Katpadi, Vellore – 632 202. Pan: Anppr 0224B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1060261821 (1) Dated 30.01.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Vellore For The Assessment Year 2017-18 U/S.144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 14.11.2019. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noticed That The Assessee Has Raised The Ground That The Cit(A)-Nfac Has Violated The Principles Of Natural Justice In Not Allowing Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Assessee & Passing Ex-Parte Order Without Going Into The Merits Of The Case. The Relevant Grounds Raised By The Assessee I.E., Ground Nos. 2 To 4 As Under:- “2. The Nfac Erred In Not Considering The Grounds Set Forth Before The Office Of Commissioner Of Income Tax & Passed An Order U/S.250 Which Violates The Principles Of Natural Justice.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 68

NFAC dismissed the appeal of assessee by observing that the assessee has not paid the taxes in term of section 249(4)(b) of the Act. But at the time of hearing, it is noted that the assessee as per the processing of return u/s.143

Krishnasamy Maruthupandian, Virudhunagar vs. ITO, Corp Ward 4, Madurai

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

ITA 863/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 863/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Krishnasamy The Income Tax Officer, Maruthupandian, Vs. Corporate Ward-4, D No.2/6/1531 Asari Colony, Madurai. 4Th Street, Satchiyapuram, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar – 626 124. Pan: Agzpm 0804B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri G. Akash, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1058168632 (1) Dated 23.11.2023. The Assessment Was Framed By The Addl./Joint/Deputy/Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2013-14 U/S.147 R.W.S.144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 19.03.2022. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Nfac Confirming The Action Of Ao In Adding The Credits In The Bank Account Amounting To Rs.7,72,83,031/- As Unexplained Money U/S.69A Of The Act By Holding That The Assessee’S Appeal Is Dismissed As Un-Admitted & Infructuous For The Reason That The Assessee Has Not Paid An Amount Equal To The Amount Of Advance Tax In Term Of Section 249(4)(B) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri G. Akash, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 69A

infructuous for the reason that the assessee has not paid an amount equal to the amount of advance tax in term of section 249(4)(b) of the Act. 3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee has not filed his return of income and accordingly, notice u/s.148 r.w.s ... that the assessee has not paid an amount equal to the amount of advance tax which was payable by him in term of section 249(4)(b) of the Act. The CIT(A)-NFAC observed as under:- “4. Since the appellant has not filed return of income as well

Philomena Paul Fernandesv, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessement Centre (ITO Ward 22(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1604/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year :2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri H.M.Bhatt
Section 139Section 147Section 156Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR

Pardeep Shah, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer, New Delhi

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

ITA 1222/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year 2012-13

For Respondent: Sh. Om Parkash, Sr.DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 69A

however declined to admit the appeal of the assessee on the ground that advance tax payable under Section 249(4)(b) of the Act has not been paid by the assessee. The CIT(A) has thus dismissed the appeal in limine without adjudicating the case on merits ... liable to tax and therefore, there was no advance tax liability arising in the hands of the assessee. Consequently, the embargo placed under Section 249(4)(b) is not applicable at the first place. The ld. counsel thus urged for restoration of appeal to the file