“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)

Kumar, Cuddalore vs. ITO, Ward-2, Cuddalore

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 494/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.494/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Kumar Ito, No.1, Ayyanor Koil, Ward -2, बनाम/ East Usuppur Village & Panchayat, Cuddalore. Vs. Chidambaram Town & Taluk, Cuddalore – 608 401. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Arrpk-4550-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) -Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30-04-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06-05-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) -Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR

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

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘ए’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी मनोज कुमार

Navpreet Singh, Ferozepur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 45(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 587/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 1Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 208Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 294(4)(b)

file in as much he was not justified to hold that the appeal is not eligible for admission as per provisions of section 249(4)(b).” 3. The case of the assessee was reopened under section1 47 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( for short ‘the Act’) for scrutiny ... ground that the Appellant has not fulfilled the necessary conditions for admission of appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as per section 249(4)(b) of the I.T Act, 1961. For the reference of the Hon'ble Bench section 294(4)(b) is reproduced as under:- 249(4

Swarna Latha, Secunderabad vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 10(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 306/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G. Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Swarna Latha, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 10(3), 5-1-269, 1St Floor, Hyderabad. Pramod Sarojinidevi Libra, R.P. Road, Secunderabad - 500003 Telangana. Pan : Arwpm0164C (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Vishnu Priya, Sr.Ar. 23.04.2024 Date Of Hearing: Date Of Pronouncement: 23.04.2024

For Appellant: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Vishnu Priya, Sr.AR

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

details. Therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) passed exparte appellate order and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by invoking the provisions of Section 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act for not paying advance tax in respect of income chargeable to tax. 8. Aggrieved with the order of Ld.CIT ... counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee by invoking inapplicable provisions of Section 249(4)(b) of the Act even though the assessee is not required to pay the advance tax when the taxable income for any assessment year

Chodisetty Hemashankar, Tuni vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tuni

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

ITA 74/VIZ/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.74/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Chodisetty Hemashankar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Tuni. Ward-1, Pan: Akupc 0617 K Tuni. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/04/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 19/04/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 69A

NFAC. 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. Decision As per the provisions of the section 249(4)(b) of the Act, the appeal shall ... this office nor did he offer any reason, leave alone any good and sufficient reasons, for seeking exemption from the operation of the section 249(4)(b) even though sufficient opportunities were provided to him On careful consideration of the above facts and circumstances, as the appellant has failed

Apparao Mutchakarla, Vizag vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Vizag

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

ITA 4/VIZ/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Apr 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.04/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2007-08) Apparao Mutchakarla, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Vizag. Income Tax, Pan: Ahvpm 9813 F Ward-1(4), Visakhapatnam. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/03/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 19/04/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

NFAC. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine 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 ... appeal as not maintainable since the assessee has not paid advance tax, which according to CIT is in violation of provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act, which finding is not correct since the section has no application to the assessee’s case and so much so when

Anil Mehta HUF, Partner of Erstwhile Hathibhoy and Sons (Since Dissolved), Mumbai vs. ITO-24(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3998/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHARI (Accountant Member)

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

payment of taxes before filing of this appeal and no return has been filed by the assessee and after invoking the provision of Section 249(4)(b), wherein if no return has been filed by the assessee, assessee has to pay an amount equal to the amount of advance

Gowrisankaran Ramamurthy, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp. Ward 22(6), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 147/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.147/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Gowrisankaran Ramamurthy Ito बनाम/ Vs. No.1, Arul Neri Nagar Extension, Non-Corporate Ward-22(6) Sembakkam, Chennai-600 073. Tambaram. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Agcpg-1136-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Anandh (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar (Jcit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17-04-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17-04-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri S. Anandh (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT)-Ld. Sr. DR

Section 147Section 249(4)(b)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘सी’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी मनोज कुमार

Rajlaxmi Satishkumar Sharma, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 121/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri B.K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr. D.R

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

erred in dismissing the appeal in limine holding it as not maintainable under the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act which is highly unjustified, unwarranted, unsustainable, not proper on facts and not in accordance with the provisions of law and the appeal is dismissed on the basis ... issue only stating that "Neither return of income has been filed nor an amount equal to the amount of advance tax as per section 249(4)(b) of the income tax, 1961 has been paid particulars of payment mentioned. In fact the assessee is having income below basic exemption

Neha Meena, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

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

ITA 49/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sandep Gosain & Dr. M. L. Meena

For Appellant: Sh. S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Monisha Chaudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 249(4)(b)Section 69

therein rejection of the appeal of the assesse on the ground of non-filing of 2 Neha Meena v. ITO the return under section 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961 although the assesse’s income was below taxable limits and that confirmation of the addition ... admitting the appeal of the assessee as he has just rejected the appeal of the assesse by referring to the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the act without discussing and calculating the quantum of the stipulated tax liability to be paid by the assessee. The learned counsel argued

Vikas Hooda, Vpo. Kiloi Khas vs. ITO, Ward- 5, Rohtak, (Haryana)

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3720/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Delhi15 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 139Section 148ASection 2(1)Section 234BSection 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 69A

material available on record. We find merit into the contention of the assessee that the learned CIT(A) wrongly applied the provisions of Section 249(4)(b) as in this case there is no admitted or undisputed tax. In the case in hand the undisputed income is Nil. Therefore, there ... time of filing of the appeal, the assessee has paid the tax due or the income returned by him. As per provision of section 249(4)(b) the appeal will not be admitted unless at the time of filing the appeal, the assessee has paid an amount equal

Vilas Dinkar Paigude, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2) Pune, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the appellant stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1173/PUN/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Mar 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

appellant filed an appeal before the CIT(A), who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal as not maintainable invoking the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act by holding that the appellant had not paid the advance tax on the returned income. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant ... appeal before us in the present appeal. 5. The ld. Counsel submits that the provisions of section 249(4)(b) has no application to the facts of the case inasmuch as there is no obligation on the part of the appellant to pay advance tax. 6. On the other hand

Jarina Begum, Kota vs. ITO Ward -1(4), Kota

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

ITA 675/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.) &

Section 120Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 234ASection 68

stated that the case under consideration is not a fit case for granting of exemption from the operation of the provisions of section 249(4)(b) as per the proviso. 2.7. The second part of the provision in 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 has not paid an amount equal to the amount of advance tax which was payable, on or before filing the appeal

Sri. Krishnappa Satish Kumar, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(1), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 731/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri V Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Parithivel, JCIT (DR)

Section 139Section 153ASection 153CSection 234BSection 249(4)Section 249(4)(a)Section 249(4)(b)

entertain an appeal or to extend Page 4 of 4 time for paying self assessment tax, except in respect of cases falling under section 249(4)(b) in terms of proviso under said section. The CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal as noted above and as per the acceptance

Nunna Primary Agricultural Co-Op Credit Society Limited, Vijayawada vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(5), Vijayawada

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

ITA 259/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.259/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Nunna Primary Agricultural Co-Op Vs. Income Tax Officer Credit Society Ltd. Ward-3(5) D.No.6-56, Nunna Village Vijayawada Vijayawada Rural Krishna District [Pan : Aaban2838D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri I Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 249(4)(b)Section 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in-limine as per the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act. 4 I.T.A. No.259/Viz/2023, A.Y.2017-18 Nunna Primary Agricultural Co-op Credit Society Ltd.,Vijayawada 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT ... Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre is not justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee in limine under section 249(4)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and as per law the Ld. Income-tax Officer

Shamanna Reddy, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1120/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojarind Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri. Shamanna Reddy, Vs. Ito, C/O. Chowdeshwari Rice Building, Ward – 4(1)(3), Opp. Hi Look Bakery, Bengaluru. Kasavanahalli, Sarjapur Road, Bengaluru – 560 035. Pan : Ccwpr 8342 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Nischal, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Nischal, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 156Section 2(14)Section 234ASection 249(4)Section 250

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

Tejpal, Faridabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Faridabad

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

ITA 3172/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Delhi15 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. S. S. Nagar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 249(4)(b)

NFAC), Delhi dated 14.09.2023. 2. The appeal of the assessee has not been admitted by the ld. CIT(A) invoking the provisions of Section 249(4)(b), while the ld. Counsel of the assessee filed copy of the ITR filed by the assessee on 05.12.2019. The ld. CIT(A) shall

Shree Lakshmi Mahila Souharda Credit Co Operative Limited, Ramanagara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ramanagara

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

ITA 1021/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kshri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale

Section 115BSection 249(4)(b)Section 68Section 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

Raj Kishore Upadhyay, Gopalganj vs. ITO Ward- Siwan, Siwan

In the result, the Stay Application of the assessee is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 300/PAT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumars.A. No. 06/Pat/2023 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No. 300/Pat/2023) Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Raj Kishore Upadhyay,...............................Applicant Rajendra Nagar, Ward No. 22, Gopalganj, Bihar, Pin-841428 [Pan: Aajpu7920N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-Siwan -A N D-

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 208Section 234BSection 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)

Appeals) did not bring any relief to the assessee. The ld. CIT(Appeals) was of the view that as per section 249(4)(b), if an assessee failed to file his regular return, then, he will be required to pay S.A. No.06/PAT/2023 (A.Y. 2017-18) (in ITA No. 300/PAT/2023

Ranajitbhai Balvantbhai Patel, Olpad vs. ITO - Ward 2(2)(4), Majura Gate

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

ITA 646/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Hybrid Hearing) Ranajitbhai Balvantbhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, At & Post Arthan, Tal: Olpad, Ward -2(2)(4), District – Surat, 394130. Surat. Pan : Bxjpp1448N Appellant Respondednt

Section 249(4)Section 254(1)Section 69A

filing return of income and was not liable to pay tax of an amount equal to amount of advance tax as required under section 249(4)(b), the assessee’s appeal was liable to be admitted. Considering the peculiar facts of the case and ratio of the decision

Mohita Patree, Noida vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Noida

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 935/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Delhi16 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2010-11

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

appeal on technical grounds. The basis for dismissal of the appeal was that the assessee had not complied with the provisions of Section 249(4)(b) of the Act. Aggrieved against this, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 4. Learned DR supported the orders of the lower authorities ... submitted that there is no infirmity in the order of learned CIT(A) as the assessee failed to comply with the provisions of Section 249(4)(b) of the Act. 5. We have heard learned DR and perused the material available on record. The explanation for not filing