“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)

Yadwinder Singh, Chhehrata vs. ITO Ward 5(5), Amritsar, Mall Road Amritsar

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 52/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Written SubmissionsFor Respondent: Shri Charan Dass (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 144Section 249(4)(b)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘DB’, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR HYBRID HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

Shri Sajid Bashir Khan, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Srinagar

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

ITA 302/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 302/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sajid Bashir Khan, Iqbalabad Vs. Ito, Ward (1), Bemina Srinagar, Jammu & Srinagar. Kashmir. [Pan:-Bxxpk6247E] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. Bashir Ahmad Lone Ca Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 210Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 282Section 69A

ground contained in the memorandum of appeal, by refusing to admit the appeal for non-payment of advance tax as per provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has deposited cash amounting to Rs.20.70 lakhs ... said appeal on the issue of non-payment of advance tax coupled with non-submission of return thereby violating the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act. I.T.A. No. 302/Asr/2024 3 Assessment Year: 2017-18 6. The ld. AR, in course of hearing submitted that the assessee

Shashank Jayendra Rajput, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(2), Vadodara

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

ITA 1698/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Tr Senthil Kumarshashank Jayendra Rajput, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. 122 Kalakunj Society, Ward-3(1)(2), Opp. Rushi Mandap, Vadodara. Karelibaug Water Tank Road, Vadodara-390001. [Pan :Aoipr3247 L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Harjotsinh Kassowal, Ar Respondent By: Shri Rohit Aasudani, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Harjotsinh Kassowal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Aasudani, Sr. DR

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

Neither the return of income has been filed nor an amount equal to the advance tax payable, as prescribed under Section 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been paid or the particulars of such payment furnished.” However, the assessee remained non-compliant and failed to furnish

Assifuddin Mehboob Khan, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5531/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Ramchandran, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 156Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 69

learned CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the requirement to make the payment of amount equal to advance tax as per Section 249(4)(b) could not have been construed as the requirement to make the payment of the amount demanded as per the notice of demand issued

Creative Realmart Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(5), Jaipur

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

ITA 457/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Filing Of Appeal In Form-35 & Appellant Has Not Done Any Non-Compliance As Per Section 249(4)(B) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Kedawat, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT (DR)

Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 249(4)(a)Section 249(4)(b)

liable to deposit advance tax before filing of appeal in Form-35 and appellant has not done any non-compliance as per section 249(4)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 2 M/S. CREATIVE REALMART PVT LTD VS ITOM WARD 3(5), JAIPUR 2. That Ld. Lower Authority Initiated ... 249(4)(a) of the Act say that tax is to be paid on returned income where ITR has been filed, provisions of section 249(4)(b) are to be construed so as to compute the amount equal to the amount of advance tax on the basis of assessed income

Haribabu Yenuganti, Ongole vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ongole

ITA 1476/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 249Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 69A

filing of the appeal failed to deposit the amount equal to the amount of advance tax as was required by the mandate of section 249(4)(b) of the Act, dismissed the appeal on the said count as not maintainable. For the sake of clarity, we deem it apposite ... filed by the appellant Not for the assessment year, whether an amount Applicable 9 equal to the amount of advance tax as per section 249(4)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 has been paid. 4.2. As per provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act, where

Vikash Mimani, Sikkim vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 3(2), Gangtok

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

ITA 1409/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: the Tribunal. An affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay has been filed. We, after considering the contents of the affidavit and submissions of both sides, we are satisfied that the delay was due to reasonable cause and the same is condoned.

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

that the assessee had neither filed the return of income nor paid the amount of advance tax as required under the provisions of Section 249(4)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal was held to be not maintainable. 6. The assessee is in further appeal before ... material available on record. It is observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the technical ground of non-compliance with Section 249(4)(b), without adjudicating the matter on merits. 8. In the interest of justice and fair play, we are of the view that the assessee

Vikash Mimani, Sikkim vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(1), Gangtok

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

ITA 1408/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2016-2017

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

Rama Damu Bhagat, Panvel vs. ITO Ward-1, Panvel

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

ITA 2109/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2109/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Rama Damu Bhagat, V The Income Tax Officer, Room No.4, Yashoganga S Ward-1, Panvel. Chg, Tilak Road, Panvel – 410206. Maharashtra. Pan: Bicpb8875P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Ca Ajinkya Vaishampayan(Virtual Hearing) Revenue By Shri Sandeep Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/10/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This 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 A.Y.2013-14 Dated 25.09.2023 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 144 R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 14.11.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :

Section 144Section 148Section 207(2)Section 207(2)(b)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 48

Ld.CIT(A) vide order dated 25/09/2023 dismissed the appeal on the ground that Assessee has not paid any advance tax, hence as per section 249(4)(b) of the Act, appeal is not maintainable. 4. Aggrieved by the Order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal

Narsinga Rao Aleti, Nalgonda vs. ITO., Ward-1, Suryapet

ITA 1419/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Us:

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 249(4)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

that as the assessee had failed to file his return of income for the subject year, therefore, he as per the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act 4 Narsinga Rao Aleti vs. ITO was obligated to have paid an amount equivalent to the amount of advance ... admission. Accordingly, the CIT(A) observing that the assessee had failed to comply with the statutory obligation that was cast upon him under section 249(4)(b) of the Act declined to admit the appeal and dismissed the same as infructuous. 7. The assessee being aggrieved by the order

Shri Nissar Ahmad Bulla, Baramula vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Srinagar

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 426/ASR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 350/Asr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 426/Asr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Nissar Ahmad Bulla Ito Sopore, Iqbal Nagar, Sopore बनाम/ Ward-1 S.O Badam Bagh, Srinagar Vs. Baramulla-193201 (J&K) "ायी लेखा सं./Pan. Ajrpb-8879-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Mohd. Iqbal Untoo (Ca)- Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Charan Dass (Addl. Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15-10-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () In Aforesaid Twin Appeals For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14, 1. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Confirmation Of Quantum Addition For Rs.22.67 Lacs & Confirmation Of Consequential Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) For Rs.5.25 Lacs. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 14 Days In Quantum Appeal Ita No.350/Asr/2024, The Condonation Of Which Has Been Sought By Ld. Ar On The Strength Of Condonation

For Appellant: Shri. Mohd. Iqbal Untoo (CA)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Charan Dass (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR

Section 249(4)(b)Section 271(1)(C)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘DB’, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR HYBRID HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

Shri Nissar Ahmad Bhulla, Baramula vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Srinagar

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 350/ASR/2024[2013-147]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Oct 2025AY 2013-147

For Appellant: Shri. Mohd. Iqbal Untoo (CA)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Charan Dass (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR

Section 249(4)(b)Section 271(1)(C)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘DB’, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR HYBRID HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

Tirumaiah Sunil, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(4), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1285/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 249(4)(b)Section 69A

amount equal to the amount of advance tax payable by him if no return of income has been filed, invoking the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act. The assessee is aggrieved with the same and is in appeal. 2. I find that assessee has filed the appeal ... year and therefore there is no advance tax payable by him and thus he is not hit by the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) has merely applied the provisions of the above section without showing that was there any advance tax payable

Jasmer Singh, Naraingarh, Ambala vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambala

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

ITA 967/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Dhiman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 249(4)(b)Section 69A

advance tax, recorded that the assessee neither responded to the notice nor deposited the required amount. Citing the mandatory condition prescribed under Section 249(4)(b), the CIT(A) held that where no return is filed, the appeal cannot be admitted unless an amount equal to the advance tax payable ... explained. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal mechanically without affording opportunity  to cure procedural defects or without exercising discretion under the proviso to Section 249(4)(b) which empowers the authority to exempt the appellant from pre-deposit on sufficient cause being shown. Reliance was placed on judicial precedents that

M/S. Educational Concepts Innovators International, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Bengaluru

Accordingly all these additional grounds are dismissed

ITA 19/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: Sri M. Monish Sowkar, A.R

Section 147Section 148Section 234Section 246ASection 249Section 250Section 44A

appellant as per the provisions of section 246A of the Act for non-payment of advance tax as per the provisions of section 249[4][b] of the Act and thereby not adjudicating the issues on merits of the matter, on the facts and circumstances of the case

Pruthvi Himanshu Shah, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3)(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 1320/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Us, As

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, AR

Section 249Section 249(4)Section 250

incorrect in law to have dismissed assesses appeal as non- maintainable for not having paid advance taxes on its income, as per section 249(4)(b) of the Act. 13. In the light of the same, we set aside the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and noting that

M/S Public Education Board Rewari, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Haryana

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

ITA 2988/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumarm/.S Public Education Board Rewari, Vs. Income Tax Officer, C/O. Kishan Lal Public Col, Delhi Exemption Ward, Road, Rewari, Haryana-123401 Rohtak (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabap5553F

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 102Section 115BSection 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 249(4)(b)Section 69A

circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal by applying the provisions of section 249(4)(b), however, the said section is not applicable in the present case. M/.s Public Education Board Rewari 2. That in any case ... view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal by applying the provisions of section 249(4)(b), is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case

Dharmendrasinh Harisinh Raj, Bharuch vs. ITO, Ward 1(5), Bharuch

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

ITA 304/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.304/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid Hearing) Dharmendrasinh Harisinh Raj Income Tax Officer Ward-1(5), बनाम/ 153, Chakla Faliyu, Village- Bharuch, Income Tax Office, Hari Vs. Sayakha, Taluka-Vagar, Kunj, Station Road, Bharuch-356 Bharuch-392 140 069 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bifpr 8389 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Appellant By Shri Sakar Sharma, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 18/08/2025 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2025

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 69A

that tax on the returned income has not been paid and the particulars of payments are not mentioned. Thereafter, he invoked provision of Section 249(4)(b) of the Act and did not admit the appeal. He dismissed the appeal for statistical purposes. 3. Aggrieved by the order

Manju Agarwal, Gwalior vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Gwalior

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

ITA 16/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra23 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Manju Agarwal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, W/O. Sameer Agarwal, Ward-1(2), Near Surya Tower, Old Gwalior High Court Road, Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Afepa7981H Assessee By : Shri Ashok Vijaywargiya, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2025

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Vijaywargiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 249(4)(b)

Learned CITA dismissed the appeal of the assessee as unadmitted by applying the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act, stating that assessee had not deposited the advance tax. 4. Before me, the Learned AR submitted that assessee was issued two PANs and return of income was furnished

Lakhmi Chand Khushiramani, Gwalior vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Gwalior

ITA 284/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 294(4)(b)Section 69A

basis of assessee's answer “No” in column number 9 of Form 35. The Ld. CIT(A), relying upon the provisions of Section 249(4)(b) of the Act, which according to the Ld. CIT(A) was that the appeal shall not be admitted, unless the appellant has paid ... finding of the Ld. CIT(A) in para 4 of his order is reproduced as under: “4. 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