← 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)

Shivratan Motilal Rathi HUF, Pune vs. ITO, Jalna

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 606/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.605 & 606/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2011-12 Shivratan Motilalji Rathi Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Jalna. Huf, Rathi Rathi & Co., 501-504, Akshay Landmarks, Opp. Pu La Garden, Sinhagad Road, Jalna- 411030. Pan : Aaehr5318G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Miss Smruti Sabnis Revenue By Shri Akhilesh Srivastva : Date Of Hearing 24.07.2025 : Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 21.10.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. There Is Delay Of 64 Days In Filing Of The Present Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Affidavit For Condonation That The Applicant Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeals Within The Prescribed Time Limit. Ld. Dr Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection To Condone The Delay, Therefore We Condone The Delay Of 64 Days & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals. 3. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 4. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.605/Pun/2025 For Assessment Year 2008-09 As The Lead Case For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Miss Smruti Sabnis
Section 142(1)Section 142ASection 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 249(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

view that the assessee has not satisfied the condition of making payment of advance tax as per the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the IT Act, therefore Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without admitting the same by observing as under :- “4 ... submitted before the bench that time and again coordinate benches of this Tribunal have held that the assessee, as per the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the IT Act, is not required to make payment of advance tax on the basis of assessed income paid any advance

Shivratan Motilalji Rathi HUF, Pune vs. ITO, Jalna

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 605/PUN/2025[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2025AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.605 & 606/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2011-12 Shivratan Motilalji Rathi Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Jalna. Huf, Rathi Rathi & Co., 501-504, Akshay Landmarks, Opp. Pu La Garden, Sinhagad Road, Jalna- 411030. Pan : Aaehr5318G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Miss Smruti Sabnis Revenue By Shri Akhilesh Srivastva : Date Of Hearing 24.07.2025 : Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 21.10.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. There Is Delay Of 64 Days In Filing Of The Present Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Affidavit For Condonation That The Applicant Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeals Within The Prescribed Time Limit. Ld. Dr Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection To Condone The Delay, Therefore We Condone The Delay Of 64 Days & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals. 3. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 4. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.605/Pun/2025 For Assessment Year 2008-09 As The Lead Case For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Miss Smruti Sabnis
Section 142(1)Section 142ASection 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 249(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

view that the assessee has not satisfied the condition of making payment of advance tax as per the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the IT Act, therefore Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without admitting the same by observing as under :- “4 ... submitted before the bench that time and again coordinate benches of this Tribunal have held that the assessee, as per the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the IT Act, is not required to make payment of advance tax on the basis of assessed income paid any advance

Shivratan Motilalji Rathi HUF, Pune vs. ITO, Jalna

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

ITA 604/PUN/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.604/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Shivratan Motilalji Rathi Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Jalna. Huf, Rathi Rathi & Co., 501-504, Akshay Landmarks, Opp. Pu La Garden, Sinhagad Road, Jalna- 411030. Pan : Aaehr5318G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Miss Smruti Sabnis Revenue By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2025 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.10.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “Ground 1. The Appellant Requests Your Honor To Condone The Delay Of 64 Days In Filing The Appeal As The Delay Was Due To Unforeseen Circumstances Beyond The Control Of The Appellant.

For Appellant: Miss Smruti SabnisFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva
Section 142(1)Section 142ASection 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

view that the assessee has not satisfied the condition of making payment of advance tax as per the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the IT Act, therefore Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without admitting the same by observing as under ... submitted before the bench that time and again coordinate benches of this Tribunal have held that the assessee, as per the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the IT Act, is not required to make payment of advance tax on the basis of assessed income instead he is required

Siddheshwar Developers and Contractors, Badlapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(2), Kalyan

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 378/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 148Section 249(4)(b)

therefore assessee didn’t pay the taxes on the same that was once again added during the AY 2016-17. Ld.CIT(A) invoked section 249(4)(b) of the Act and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2016-17 in limine on the ground that assessee didn

Dhurba Saikia, Sonapur Bo vs. ITO, Ward North Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur

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

ITA 71/GTY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Agarwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray, DR
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 156Section 208Section 234B(1)Section 249Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 270A

been filed by the appellant for the assessment Not year,whether an amount equal to the amount of advance tax as per applicable section 249(4)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 has been paid 3.2. As per provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act, where ... 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

Dhurba Saikia, Sonapur Bo vs. ITO, Ward North Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur

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

ITA 70/GTY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Agarwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray, DR
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 156Section 208Section 234B(1)Section 249Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 270A

been filed by the appellant for the assessment Not year,whether an amount equal to the amount of advance tax as per applicable section 249(4)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 has been paid 3.2. As per provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act, where ... 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

Manish Nanalal Dudhaiya, Badlapur vs. Commissionar ITO, Kalyan

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

ITA 2019/MUM/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalmanish Nanalal Dudhaiya Vs. Ito – 2(2) 10, Chinar Society 2Nd Floor Wayle Nagar Ambarnath, Thane, Kulgaon Mohan Plaza, So, 421503 Khadakpada Kalian Pan/Gir No. Aibpd6371L (Applicant) (Respondent)

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

Sushma Haresh Ubale, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(2)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 1274/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. D/R
Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

appeal of the assessee, without admitting the same for adjudication, on the sole ground of non-payment of advance tax in accordance with section 249(4)(b) of the IT Act. In this regard, we are of the considered opinion that the advance tax if any payable as per section ... I.T.A. No. 1274/Mum/2025 5 observation of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC that the assessee was required to deposit advance tax in the light of section 249(4)(b) of the IT Act & when the assessee was issued show cause to explain this point he did not chose to file any application

Bir Singh, Haryana vs. Income Tax Ward-1, Karnal, Haryana

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

ITA 5579/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5579/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 बनाम Shri Bir Singh, Income Tax Officer, H.No. 94, Balaji Colony, Vs. Ward-1, Karnal. Panouri Road, Gharaunda, Karnal, Haryana. Pan No.Ckkps1654J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)

which was payable by the assessee and thus, the Ld. CIT(A) 1 dismissed the appeal at the threshold invoking the provisions of section 249(4)(b). Ld. Counsel submits that the income of the assessee was below the exemption limit and thus, the assessee was neither required to file ... advance tax. Ld. Counsel thus, submits that there is no justification in not admitting the appeal by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) invoking section 249(4)(b) of the Act. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further placed reliance on the following decisions in support of the above submissions: • Smt. Sushma Singhal

Gauri Sagar Shivale, Pune vs. ITO Ward 8(3), Pune

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

ITA 101/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.101/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Gauri Sagar Shivale, Income Tax Officer, S. No. 32/4, Nimbalkar Nagar, Ward – 8(3), Pune Brt Road, Near Rajiv Gandhi Vs. College, Tathawade, Mulshi, Pune-411033 Pan : Bjipp4685G अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S. Pathak Department By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 15-05-2025 Date Of 21-07-2025 Pronouncement :

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 156Section 2(47)Section 249Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 80T

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 3.2 As per provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act, where ... 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

Surender Sharma, Panipat vs. ITO Ward-4, Panipat

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 557/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 557/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Surender Sharma, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O J. B. Sharma, Adv., Ward-4, 72, Bmk Market, Nr Hotel Hive, G. Panipat, T. Road, Panipat, Haryana-132103 Haryana-132103 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Cfhps7057B Assessee By : Sh. J. B. Sharma, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.07.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2011-12, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1059098895(1) Dated 27.12.2023, In Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. J. B. Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 249(4)(b)Section 69

learned CIT(A)/NFAC has rejected the assessee's lower appeal "in limine" for want of payment of advance tax thereby invoking section 249(4)(b) of the Act. He appears to have upheld the Assessing Officer's 2 Surender Sharma action making section 69 unexplained investment addition of Rs.13

Mota Dadva Mahila Doodh Utpadak Sahkari, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Rajkot

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

ITA 38/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot10 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.37 & 38/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Mota Dadva Mahila Utpadak Sahakari The Ito, Ward-1(2)(1) बनाम At Mota Dadva, Gondal, Rajkot Rajkot Gujarat-360311 Vs. Pan : Aakfm7170M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Ms. Monica Pandey, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, ld.ARFor Respondent: Ms. Monica Pandey, Sr-DR
Section 144Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

dismissed the appeal of the assessee, on the ground that assessee has not deposited the advance -tax, as per the provisions of Section 249(4)(b) of the Act. Mota Dadva Mahila Doodh Utpadak Sahkari ITA No.37 & 38 /RJT/2025 (AYs : 2017-18 & 2018-19) 3 6. Learned Counsel ... which is a similar in all these two cases), are reproduced below: “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

Mota Dadva Mahila Doodh Utpadak Sahkari, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Rajkot

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

ITA 37/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot10 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.37 & 38/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Mota Dadva Mahila Utpadak Sahakari The Ito, Ward-1(2)(1) बनाम At Mota Dadva, Gondal, Rajkot Rajkot Gujarat-360311 Vs. Pan : Aakfm7170M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Ms. Monica Pandey, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, ld.ARFor Respondent: Ms. Monica Pandey, Sr-DR
Section 144Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

dismissed the appeal of the assessee, on the ground that assessee has not deposited the advance -tax, as per the provisions of Section 249(4)(b) of the Act. Mota Dadva Mahila Doodh Utpadak Sahkari ITA No.37 & 38 /RJT/2025 (AYs : 2017-18 & 2018-19) 3 6. Learned Counsel ... which is a similar in all these two cases), are reproduced below: “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

Ayeshabee Babu Khan, Mankhured vs. ITO 27 1 1 Mumbai, Vashi Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 2887/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailayeshabee Babu Khan, 1, Mankhured Station Road, T.F. Donar S.O., Mumbai – 400088 ............... Appellant Pan : Cgopk4227M V/S Ito – 27(1)(1), Vashi Railway Station, ……………… Respondent 3X7X Gqp 3Rd & 4Th Floor, 6Th Tower Complex Vashi, Navi Mumbai. Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra Shah Revenue By : Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 249Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 251

income and there was also no request from the assessee for seeking exemption from the operation of the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act, the learned CIT(A) held that the appeal filed by the assessee is not admissible. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before ... Authorized Representative (“learned AR”), inter alia, submitted that given an opportunity the assessee will file necessary application in compliance of the provision of section 249(4)(b) of the Act for seeking exemption from the learned CIT(A) from the operation of the provisions of section. 6. Accordingly, we deem

Gurmelo Devi, Jagadhari vs. Income Tax Officer, Yumnanagar

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

ITA 1170/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

against her. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), which was dismissed on the ground of non-compliance with Section 249(4)(b) of the Act. It was noted that the assessee had neither filed her return nor paid the advance tax as determined ... limine. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), which was dismissed on the ground of non-compliance with Section 249(4)(b) of the Act. It was noted that the assessee had neither filed her return nor paid the advance tax as determined

Aamna Altafhussain Shariff, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 16(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3112/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Ms. Aamna Altafhussain Ito Ward-16(1)(1), Sharif, Aayakar Bhavan, 101-102 Meghdot-B, M.K. Road, Opp. Joggers Park, Churchgate, Vs. Lokhandwala, Mumbai, Andheri (West) Maharashtra – 420 020 Mumbai Maharashtra – 400 053 Pan: Aorps6003G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 249(4)(b)Section 69C

mainly aggrieved 2 Ms. Aamna Altafhussain Sharif by dismissal of the order by the Ld. CIT (A) by applying the provision of section 249(4)(b) of the Act. 2. At the outset, it is observed that the appeal of the Assessee is delayed by 97 days. In the petition ... days. It has been stated that the Ld. CIT (A), without giving any notice that the appeal was not maintainable, has applied section 249(4)(b) of the Act. It has been further stated that the assessee was not aware of intricacies of income tax law or appellate proceedings

Adarsh Medical Hall, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-7(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 287/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.287/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Adarsh Medical Hall Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward-7(1) [Pan :Aagfa5186R] Hyderabad

For Appellant: Shri R.Mohan Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashutosh Pradhan, DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 249(4)(b)Section 69A

appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings, the Ld.CIT(A) observed that the assessee failed to satisfy the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act, therefore, notices were issued on 20.12.2023 and 26.12.2023 to comply with relevant provisions of the Act. However, the assessee ... Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee in- 4 Adarsh Medical Hall limine in terms of section 249(4)(b) of the Act for non-payment of admitted tax or an amount equal to the amount of advance tax which was payable

Raman Kumar, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 62(2), Delhi

The appeal is allowed, for statistical purposes only

ITA 2020/DEL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Raman Kumar, Vs Ito, C9/175, Yamuna Vihar, Ward-62(2), New Delhi - 110 053. Delhi Pan: Aikpk1659F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Arzoo Rai, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

For Appellant: Ms Arzoo Rai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. DR
Section 249(4)(b)

hearing. 3. It comes up that the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal on the basis of non-compliance of conditions mentioned u/s section 249(4)(b) of the Act in a summary manner. However, it is a case of non-filing of the return by the assessee. The ld.CIT

Kdp Buildwell P.Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 524/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmam/S. Kdp Buildwell Pvt. Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, A-213, 1St Floor, Shanti Gopal Chamber, Ghaziabad. Vikas Marg, Shakarpur, Delhi – 110 092. (Pan :Aabcs6353E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suresh Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.04.2025 Date Of Order : 25.06.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Iv, Kanpur [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 23.03.2018 For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, A Search & Seizure Operation Under Section 132 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) Was Conducted On 26.09.2014 On The Premises Of The Assessee Comprising Kdp/Mgp Group Of Cases. Based On The Incriminating Material Found During The Search, A Notice

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 140ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 153C

case we notice that the CIT(A) has rejected the appeal by stating that the assessee’s case fall within the purview of section 249(4)(b) and the assessee has not complied with the requirement under the proviso to the said section. This in our considered view

Mohar Singh Gour, Bhopal vs. ITO NFAC, Delhi

Appeal is dismissed is non payment of advance

ITA 650/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore05 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 253

impugned order” has dismissed the first appeal of the assessee on the ground specified therein. The core reason being that by virtue of Section 249(4)(b) the assessee was required to pay an amount equal to the amount of advance tax as the same is not paid and hence