← 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)

Rajat Kumar Gupta, Ramanujganj, Balrampur vs. Income Tax Officer-1, Ambikapur

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

ITA 737/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 736 & 737/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Rajat Kumar Gupta, V Income Tax Officer-1, Near Power House Road, S Kharsiya Marg, Tatapani, Ramanujganj, S.O., Near Ambika Petrol Pump, Surguja- 497220, C.G. Ambikapur-497335, C.G. Pan: Bpfpg5887N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) . . िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 05.01.2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: Since Facts, Grounds & Issues Involved Therein Are Common & Identical; Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together For Adjudication By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69Section 69A

date is not valid, hence this is a case where no income tax return is filed. Then the case is covered by section 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act. As per the information provided by the assessee himself the advance tax liability was not discharged by the assessee

Rajat Kumar Gupta, Surguja, Ambikapur vs. Income Tax Officer-1, Ambikapur

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

ITA 736/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 736 & 737/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Rajat Kumar Gupta, V Income Tax Officer-1, Near Power House Road, S Kharsiya Marg, Tatapani, Ramanujganj, S.O., Near Ambika Petrol Pump, Surguja- 497220, C.G. Ambikapur-497335, C.G. Pan: Bpfpg5887N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) . . िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 05.01.2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: Since Facts, Grounds & Issues Involved Therein Are Common & Identical; Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together For Adjudication By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69Section 69A

date is not valid, hence this is a case where no income tax return is filed. Then the case is covered by section 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act. As per the information provided by the assessee himself the advance tax liability was not discharged by the assessee

Apmc Tarikere, Tarikere vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chickmagalur

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

ITA 1442/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri C.R. Vasanth Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R
Section 10Section 10(1)Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(7)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

regarding return filed for the assessment year in connection with which appeal is filed and whether an amount of advance tax as per section 249(4)(b) of the Act was paid and accordingly did not admit the appeal for adjudication on merit. 5. Again, aggrieved by the order ... Mysore. Further, assessee has also claimed exemption u/s 10(26AAB) of the Act being agricultural produce market committee and therefore, the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act will not be applicable to the assessee. 8.1 Further we are of the considered opinion that Section 249(4)(b

Gurpreet Singh Pannu, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 435/ASR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, C. AFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. D. R
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 69Section 69A

case, Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal as not admitted in view of section 249(4)(b) of the Act without considering the submission of the assessee and facts of the case. (b) That having regard to the facts and circumstances ... after discussing the issue on merits , he was not legally justified to dismiss the appeal for alleged violation of the provisions of section 249(4)(b), more so when the admitted tax of Rs. 10.72 lakhs on LTCG, has already been paid in course of first appeal

Govabhai Lakhabhai Rabari, Anjar vs. Income Tax Officer(ITO), Gandhidham

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

ITA 878/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Kalepesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234ASection 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 274Section 44A

without giving proper opportunity of being heard. 3. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly dismissed the appeal by applying provision of section 249(4)(b) of the I.T. Act. 4. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed addition of Rs. 12,41,000/- on account of unexplained money

Govabhai Lakhabhai Rabari, Anjar vs. Income Tax Officer(ITO), Gandhidham

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

ITA 877/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Kalepesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234ASection 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 274Section 44A

without giving proper opportunity of being heard. 3. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly dismissed the appeal by applying provision of section 249(4)(b) of the I.T. Act. 4. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed addition of Rs. 12,41,000/- on account of unexplained money

Mr. Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2519/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2513, 2514, 2515, 2516, 2517, 2518 & 2519/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 Shri Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, The Deputy Commissioner No.42, Maraikayar Street-Ii Floor, Vs. Of Income Tax, Near Annai Ayesha Mahal, Central Circle – 1(4), Chennai – 600 001. Chennai. Pan: Aawpi 0038G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca & Shri Shrenik Chordia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 139Section 208Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

assessee has primarily raised two grounds namely ground Nos.2 & 3. Ground No.2 relates to whether the CIT(A) has erred in invoking section 249(4)(b) of the Act and dismissing the appeals in limine by holding that advance tax liability is to be based on the assessed income instead ... adjudicated by the CIT(A)]. 4. Firstly, the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee by invoking the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act. The relevant finding of the CIT(A) in the assessment year 2015-16 dismissing the appeals in limine read as follows

Mr. Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2518/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2513, 2514, 2515, 2516, 2517, 2518 & 2519/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 Shri Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, The Deputy Commissioner No.42, Maraikayar Street-Ii Floor, Vs. Of Income Tax, Near Annai Ayesha Mahal, Central Circle – 1(4), Chennai – 600 001. Chennai. Pan: Aawpi 0038G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca & Shri Shrenik Chordia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 139Section 208Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

assessee has primarily raised two grounds namely ground Nos.2 & 3. Ground No.2 relates to whether the CIT(A) has erred in invoking section 249(4)(b) of the Act and dismissing the appeals in limine by holding that advance tax liability is to be based on the assessed income instead ... adjudicated by the CIT(A)]. 4. Firstly, the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee by invoking the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act. The relevant finding of the CIT(A) in the assessment year 2015-16 dismissing the appeals in limine read as follows

Mr. Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2517/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2513, 2514, 2515, 2516, 2517, 2518 & 2519/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 Shri Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, The Deputy Commissioner No.42, Maraikayar Street-Ii Floor, Vs. Of Income Tax, Near Annai Ayesha Mahal, Central Circle – 1(4), Chennai – 600 001. Chennai. Pan: Aawpi 0038G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca & Shri Shrenik Chordia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 139Section 208Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

assessee has primarily raised two grounds namely ground Nos.2 & 3. Ground No.2 relates to whether the CIT(A) has erred in invoking section 249(4)(b) of the Act and dismissing the appeals in limine by holding that advance tax liability is to be based on the assessed income instead ... adjudicated by the CIT(A)]. 4. Firstly, the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee by invoking the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act. The relevant finding of the CIT(A) in the assessment year 2015-16 dismissing the appeals in limine read as follows

Mr. Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

ITA 2516/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2513, 2514, 2515, 2516, 2517, 2518 & 2519/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 Shri Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, The Deputy Commissioner No.42, Maraikayar Street-Ii Floor, Vs. Of Income Tax, Near Annai Ayesha Mahal, Chennai - 600 001. Central Circle – 1(4), Chennai. Pan: Aawpi 0038G (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca & Shri Shrenik Chordia, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Seven Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Chennai-18, All Dated 11.08.2025, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called `The Act'). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2015-16 To 2021-22. :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 139Section 208Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

assessee has primarily raised two grounds namely ground Nos.2 & 3. Ground No.2 relates to whether the CIT(A) has erred in invoking section 249(4)(b) of the Act and dismissing the appeals in limine by holding that advance tax liability is to be based on the assessed income instead ... adjudicated by the CIT(A)]. 4. Firstly, the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee by invoking the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act. The relevant finding of the CIT(A) in the assessment year 2015-16 dismissing the appeals in limine read as follows

Mr. Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2515/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2513, 2514, 2515, 2516, 2517, 2518 & 2519/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 Shri Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, The Deputy Commissioner No.42, Maraikayar Street-Ii Floor, Vs. Of Income Tax, Near Annai Ayesha Mahal, Central Circle – 1(4), Chennai – 600 001. Chennai. Pan: Aawpi 0038G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca & Shri Shrenik Chordia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 139Section 208Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

assessee has primarily raised two grounds namely ground Nos.2 & 3. Ground No.2 relates to whether the CIT(A) has erred in invoking section 249(4)(b) of the Act and dismissing the appeals in limine by holding that advance tax liability is to be based on the assessed income instead ... adjudicated by the CIT(A)]. 4. Firstly, the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee by invoking the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act. The relevant finding of the CIT(A) in the assessment year 2015-16 dismissing the appeals in limine read as follows

Mr. Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-194), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2514/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2513, 2514, 2515, 2516, 2517, 2518 & 2519/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 Shri Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, The Deputy Commissioner No.42, Maraikayar Street-Ii Floor, Vs. Of Income Tax, Near Annai Ayesha Mahal, Central Circle – 1(4), Chennai – 600 001. Chennai. Pan: Aawpi 0038G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca & Shri Shrenik Chordia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 139Section 208Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

assessee has primarily raised two grounds namely ground Nos.2 & 3. Ground No.2 relates to whether the CIT(A) has erred in invoking section 249(4)(b) of the Act and dismissing the appeals in limine by holding that advance tax liability is to be based on the assessed income instead ... adjudicated by the CIT(A)]. 4. Firstly, the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee by invoking the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act. The relevant finding of the CIT(A) in the assessment year 2015-16 dismissing the appeals in limine read as follows

Mr. Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2513/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2513, 2514, 2515, 2516, 2517, 2518 & 2519/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 Shri Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, The Deputy Commissioner No.42, Maraikayar Street-Ii Floor, Vs. Of Income Tax, Near Annai Ayesha Mahal, Central Circle – 1(4), Chennai – 600 001. Chennai. Pan: Aawpi 0038G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca & Shri Shrenik Chordia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 139Section 208Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

assessee has primarily raised two grounds namely ground Nos.2 & 3. Ground No.2 relates to whether the CIT(A) has erred in invoking section 249(4)(b) of the Act and dismissing the appeals in limine by holding that advance tax liability is to be based on the assessed income instead ... adjudicated by the CIT(A)]. 4. Firstly, the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee by invoking the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act. The relevant finding of the CIT(A) in the assessment year 2015-16 dismissing the appeals in limine read as follows

Banvari, Sriganganagar vs. ITO, Ward-3, Sriganganagar

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

ITA 202/JODH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon'Ble

Section 208Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)

NFAC/CIT(A)"] dated 30.01.2024 in respect of assessment year 2012-13 challenging therein non admission of appeal in violation of provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act. 2. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and law while denying ... b) of the Act without appreciating the contention of the appellant in view of the intention of the legislature behind the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act where the assessee intends to take advantage of appeal under Chapter XX of the Income Tax that he should

Swaminath Baburao Patil, Solapur vs. ITO Ward 2(3) Solapur, Solapur

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

ITA 832/PUN/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Nov 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.832/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Swaminath Baburao Patil, V The Income Tax Officer, C37, Siddheshwar Market S Ward-2(3), Solapur. Yard, Hyderabad Road, Solapur – 431005. Maharashtra. Pan: Akwpp4321P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Girish Ladda Revenue By Shri Ambarnath Khule (Through Virtual Hearing) – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2014-15 Dated 27.01.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Act, Dated 19.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 153CSection 249(4)(a)Section 250Section 292B

grounds of appeal. Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal as unadmitted. Ld.AR submitted that ld.CIT(A) has erroneously 4 ITA No.832/PUN/2025 [A] invoked Section 249(4)(b) of the Act, whereas Section 249(4)(a) of the Act is applicable in the case of the Assessee as Assessee had filed ... income for A.Y.2014-15. However, ld.CIT(A) has erroneously mentioned that assessee had not filed Return of Income. Therefore, ld.CIT(A) has erroneously applied Section 249(4)(b) of the Act. The Section 249(4)(b) is reproduced as under : “Form of appeal and limitation. 249. (1) Every appeal under this

Nooranad Service Cooperative Society Limited, Alappuzha vs. ITO, Ward 2, Thiruvalla

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

ITA 785/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Nooranad Service Co-Op. Society Ltd. .......... Appellant Padanilam P.O., Nooranad, Alappuzha 690529 [Pan: Aaban2292F] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-2, Thiruvalla .......... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 23.01.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That That Appellant Is A Co-Operative Society Registered Under The Kerala State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Accepting Deposits From Members & Providing Credit Facilities To Members. The Return Of Income For Ay 2017-18 Was Not Filed By The Appellant Society. Based On The Information That The Appellant Had Deposited Cash Amounting To Rs. 12,28,000/- In The District Co-Operative Bank

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 249(4)(b)

assessee by stating that the appellant failed to fulfill the necessary conditions for admission of appeal before the CIT(A) as per section 249(4)(b) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. At the outset, I find

Kollamkulam Tomy Mathew, Kottayam vs. Income Tax Officer, Assessment Unit

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

ITA 777/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kollamkulam Tomy Mathew .......... Appellant Kollamkulam, Kanjirappally 682020 [Pan: Akypm6369A] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-1, Kottayam .......... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 249(4)(b)Section 3

Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal in limine invoking provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. When the appeal

Saugaat, Ambala Cantt vs. ITO, Ward 4, Ambala Cantt. (Assessment Unit), Ambala Cantt

ITA 443/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vineet Krishan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

asks whether the assessee—being a non-filer—has paid “an amount equal to the amount of advance tax payable” in terms of section 249(4)(b), the assessee wrote “Not Applicable.” The CIT(A) noted that, except for attaching irrelevant documents such as an assessment order ... confirmed that the assessee had paid no advance tax for AY 2018-19. 8. The CIT(A) thereafter examined the legal requirement under section 249(4)(b), which mandates that where an assessee has not filed the return of income, the appeal shall not be admitted unless the assessee

Pirtpal Singh Brar, Muktsar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Muktsar

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

ITA 38/ASR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv. &
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 208Section 249Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 69

being paid, coupled with the fact that no return of income has been filed by the assessee thereby attracting the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act. The contention of the assesseee is that the ld. first appellate authority should have allowed an opportunity of hearing to explain ... payment of advance tax while invoking the provisions of section 249(4)(b). 3. The assessee further contended that he has no obligation to pay advance tax u/s 208 because the assessee is an agriculturist and the income derived by him from agricultural activities are exempt from taxation. The assessee

Fakhruddin Bhura, Mumbai vs. ITO, Int Tax Ward 2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5562/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Kishore Rajshirkhe, ARFor Respondent: Ms.Kavitha Kaushik (Sr. DR)
Section 147Section 154Section 249(4)(b)

appeals. 5. That the learned CTT(A) failed to consider the settled position of law and relevant judicial precedents which hold that Section 249(4)(b) applies only when advance tax is legally payable, and mere omission in payment, in the absence of actual liability, cannot render the appeal defective ... included the advance tax payable by the appellant as well as the interest on account of delayed payment of advance tax. As per section 249(4)(b) of the Act, the appeal shall not be admitted, unless the appellant paid an amount equal to the amount of advance tax which