“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

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

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)

Arvindsinh Ishvarsinh Vaghela, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-4, Mehsana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 420/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 248(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 548

ITA No.420/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Page 1 of 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Sri Keshamul Agarwal, East Sikkim vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Gangtok

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

ITA 219/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 219/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Sri Kesharmul Agarwal,…………. …..………..Appellant C/O. M/S. Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, C.R. Avenue, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700072 [Pan:Atopa1445Q] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………….…Respondent Ward-3(1), Gangtok, Aayakar Bhawan, Bhanupath, While Hall Campus, P.O. Rajbaheri, Gangtok-737101, Sikkim Appearances By: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, Fca Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri B.K. Singh, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 18, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 19, 2024 O R D E R

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

part is tax on returned income not paid and secondly particulars of payment not mentioned. 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. The reply of the appellant to the deficiency ... return has been filed by the appellant for the assessment year, 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 As can be seen from the above, the appellant has stated

Sh. Naresh Kumar, Alwar vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Alwar

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

ITA 329/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 148Section 249Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 69A

amount of advance tax which was payable by it, the appeal is not liable to be admitted by incorrectly interpreting the provision of Section 249(4)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961’ 2.1 Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has not filed the return of income

Osia Jewels Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 3(4)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1546/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri H.M.Bhatt

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 69A

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

Rakesh Jagannath Guta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 12(5), Pune

ITA 797/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.797/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

Section 249(4)(b)Section 294(4)(b)

dated 10.06.2024 in mentioning the section. In Para Nos.3 and 7 of the order, section 294(4)(b) was mentioned inadvertently instead of section 249(4)(b). Therefore, the same may be read as section 249(4)(b). (S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे

Bezawada Narayanamurthy, Tirupathi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1), Tirupathi

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

ITA 358/HYD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.358/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Bezawada Vs. Income Tax Officer Narayanamurthy Ward 1(1) Tirupathi Tirupati Pan:Aespn6071N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 11/06/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR

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

dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground that the appeal filed by the assessee is not maintainable as per section 249(4)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for non-payment of admitted taxes. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee ... that the learned CIT (A) is erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee by not admitting the appeal in terms of section 249(4)(b) Page 2 of 5 ITA No 358 of 2024 Bezawada Narayanamurthy of the I.T. Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that when

Dilip Hiralal Chaudhari, Nandurbar vs. ITO, Ward, Dhule

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

ITA 642/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi

Section 142(1)Section 249(4)(b)Section 44A

balance income of Rs.1127698 assessed by the A.O. was disputed by the assessee in appeal and hence, the provisions of section of section 249(4)(b) cannot be interpreted in a manner to compel the appellant to pay advance tax on the entire disputed income before filing appeal merely because ... appellant had not filed a valid ITR for A.Y.2017 - 18. 3] The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the provisions of section 249(4)(b) mandate that the (advance) tax liability on the undisputed income must be deposited prior to filing appeal and the interpretation as sought

Swasthik Financiers, Kodagu vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Madikeri

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

ITA 752/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R

Section 115BSection 234ASection 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 68

below taxable limit and there was no tax liability. However, the NFAC has dismissed the appeal of assessee by applying the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act as the assessee has not paid the tax on the admitted income. Further, he submitted that the ld. AO made ... there is no reason to dismiss the appeal of assessee by stating that there was no payment of admitted tax in terms of section 249(4)(b) of the Act. 3. The ld. D.R. relied on the order of NFAC. Swasthik Financiers, Kodagu Page 3 of 4 4. We have

Visveswaraya Resham Khadi Industrial Association, Chikkaballapura vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Chikaballapura

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

ITA 361/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Visveswaraya Resham Khadi Industrial Association, Near Eswara Temple, The Income Tax Jangamakote Town, Officer, Post: Jangamakote Ward – 4(1), Shidlaghatta (Tq), Chikaballapur. Vs. Chikkaballapura Dist., Karnataka – 562 144. Pan: Aabav2671C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H. Guruswamy, Itp : Shri Narendra Kumar Naik, Revenue By Addl. Cit –Dr Date Of Hearing : 29-04-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2024 Order Per Beena Pillaithe Present Appeal Arises Out Of Order Dated 02/02/2024, Passed By Nfac, Delhi For Assessment Year 2018-19 Is On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITP

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

holding that the assessee has not filed an application as per proviso to Section 249(4) seeking exemption from 5. operation of section 249(4)(b) without 1,27,39,161/- appreciating the fact that the question of filing the application for exemption did not arise as there ... 249(4) of the Act. The relevant finding of the CIT(A) reads as follows: “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

Rajabather Sampath Chennai, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-8(1), Chennai

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

ITA 21/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.21/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. Shri Rajabather Sampath, The Income Tax Officer, 1/11, Balambigai Nagar, Non-Corporate Ward-8(1), 4Th Street, Ramapuram, Chennai. Nandambakkam, Kudiyiruppu S.O., Kanchipuram, Chennai-600 089. [Pan: Bbkps 5373 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

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

been filed by the appellant for Not Applicable the assessment year, 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 9.1. If reply to 9 is Yes, then enter details. - ITA No.21 /Chny/2024

Devineni Madhu Pavani, Nallajerla Mandal vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 81/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.81/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Devineni Madhu Pavani Vs. Income Tax Officer D/O Somaraju, Tirumala Township Ward-1(4) Near Kanaka Durga Temple Visakhapatnam Nallajerla Mandal, West Godavari Dist. [Pan : Bfgpm9285R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR

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

said assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) observed that as per the provisions of the section 249(4)(b) of the Act, the appeal shall not be admitted, unless the assessee has paid an amount equal to the amount of advance

Pankaj Kumar Sharma, Jodhpur vs. ITO Ward 4(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 492/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 249(4)(b)

reason that the assessee had failed to fulfill the mandatory and essential conditions for admission of appeal before him as per Section 249(4)(b) of the Act. Although, before the Bench, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed the detailed written submission and submitted that that Section 249

Durairaj Srivalli, Tirupur, Tamil Nadu vs. The Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department, Ward Two of Two, Tirupur

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

ITA 855/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.855/Chny/2024 िनधा)रण वष) /Assessment Years: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT

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

r.w.s 147of the Act on 27.12.2018. :- 2 -: 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal by observing as under: “2.7. 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

Bangalore Restaurant, Vijayapura vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Bijapur

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

ITA 378/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Prasanna N Uralla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL

Gyanoba Pandurang Panzade Trough His Legal Heir Manoj Gyanoba Panzade, Parbhani vs. ITO Officer, Parbhani

Appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 447/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: CA Suhani MaharwalFor Respondent: Shri Somnath M Wajale

Section 147Section 2(11)Section 2(29)Section 249(4)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE [THROUGH HYBRID HEARING] BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Shri. Boregowda Rajanna, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly

ITA 304/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Narendra Kumar Naik

Section 115BSection 144Section 234Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 4Section 69A

justified to pass an order of dismissed of an appeal as "failure of condition for admitting an appeal", by applying the provision of section 249(4)(b). The said provision is not applicable in present case, the need of advance tax is not applicable when assessee income is below taxable ... assessee did not comply with the said letters, the Ld.CIT(A) held that the appeal was not eligible for admission as per section 249(4)(b) of the act. The Ld.CIT(A) thus dismissed the appeal. 2.7 Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before

Janakiram Dammalapati, Khammam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kothagudem

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

ITA 228/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Smt. S. Sandhya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR

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

assessee has made any request for exemption from payment of such advance tax in accordance with the proviso to section 249(4)(b) of the Act. The relevant observations of the Ld.CIT(A) are reproduced, as under: “… 2.8. As per section 249(4)(b) of the Act, the appeal shall ... 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.” 5. Feeling aggrieved with the order

Braham Singh, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward-1(1), Faridabad

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3495/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 144BSection 147Section 194ASection 249(4)(b)Section 270ASection 3

regards to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in admitting the appeal considering the impact of section 249(4)(b) 234B and 208. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has not afforded proper opportunity to the appellant to explain the matter and whole

Kamaludeen, Hosur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Hosur

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

ITA 110/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No.110/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 Mr.Kamaludeen, Vs. Ito No.59, Denkanikotta Road, Ward-1, Opposite To R.C.Church, Hosur. Shanti Nagar(West), Hosur-635109. [Pan: Ajdpk0299D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing 02.05.2024 : घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Order Dated 28.12.2023 Passed By The Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2

For Appellant: Shri S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 147Section 148Section 249Section 249(4)(b)Section 69A

whether the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi is justified in confirming the order of AO by dismissing the appeal for non-compliance of section 249(4)(b) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. We note that the assessee is an individual. The AO issued notice ... wherein the assessee in Column No.9 of Form-35, by mistake, it was stated, the non-applicability advance tax as per Section 249(4)(b) of the Act. The ld.AR submits that by inadvertent mistake, the assessee made endorsement as non-applicability but the payment of advance tax credit

Saryu Devi Tiwari, Bhopal vs. ITO 5(3), Bhopal

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

ITA 399/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Indore07 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisaryu Devi Tiwari Ito-5(3) House No.89, Near Durga Dham Bhopal Mandir, Ashoka Vihar, Ashoka Vs. Garden Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Arhpt0228M Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah & Soumya Bumb Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement .05.2024

same by the appellant. 4.1 The appellant failed to remove deficiency in the appeal filed. Therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 249(4)(b) of Income Tax Act, 1961, the appeal filed by the appellant cannot be admitted and is not maintainable. For statistical purposes, the appeal