← 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)

Mohar Singh Gour, Bhopal vs. ITO NFAC, Delhi

Appeal is dismissed is non payment of advance

ITA 649/IND/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Indore05 Jun 2025AY 2013-2014

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

Cofre Do Fundo Da Cruz Alo De Bambolim, Bambolim vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 305/PAN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji04 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.305/Pan/2024 (A.Y. 2015-16 ) Cofre Do Fundo Da Cruz Alo Vs National E – De Bombolim, Assessment Centre, . 101/1,Holy Cross Shrine, Delhi-110001 Bambolim, Gmc Complex, . Bambolim-403202, Goa. Pan .No. Aabtc0675N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By Smt.Pratibha.R. Ar Revenue By Shri.Deshmukh S Prakashsr.Dr

Section 11Section 249(4)(b)

facts, findings of the AO and Form no 35 and find that the assessee has not paid the taxes and the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act are attracted and has issued deficiency letter and since there was no compliance by the assesse ... interested and find that as per Form no 35, the assessee has not paid the taxes/advance tax and the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act are attracted and the CIT(A) has issued the deficiency letter dated 05-01-2024 referred at Para3.5 of the order

Pradeep Singh Aswal, Madhya Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2) Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh

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

ITA 164/AGR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 249Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)

dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine for want of payment of advance tax as per the provisions of Section 249(4)(b) of the Act. Against this order of ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before Tribunal. 4. So far as the non-maintainability of assessee ... sufficient reason to be recorded in writing, exempt him from the operation of the provisions of that clause.” 5. Admittedly, as per section 249(4)(b) of the Act, in a case where no return of income has been filed by the assessee, then his appeal shall be maintainable before

Divey Dipti Chopra, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 11(1), Delhi

ITA 5443/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 249(4)(b)

next emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that the CIT(A)/NFAC has invoked section 249(4)(b) of the Act for rejecting the assessee’s lower appeal in limine for want of a payment of his admitted advance tax. 4

Divey Dipti Chopra, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-11(1), Delhi

ITA 5442/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 249(4)(b)

next emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that the CIT(A)/NFAC has invoked section 249(4)(b) of the Act for rejecting the assessee’s lower appeal in limine for want of a payment of his admitted advance tax. 4

Laxmi Babu Debnath, Pune vs. ITO Ward 7(1), Pune

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

ITA 536/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.535 & 536/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Laxmi Babu Debnath, V The Income Tax Officer, Level 3, Riverside Business S Ward-7(1), Pune. Bay, Wellesley Road, Near Rto, Pune – 411001. Maharashtra. Pan: Acypd2630F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajiv Thakkar – Ar Revenue By Shri Madhan Thirmanpallil – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 14/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeal Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. These Two Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. We Treat Appeal In

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 249(4)Section 250Section 57

situations. In this case, ld.CIT(A) has stated that assessee has not filed Return of Income and not paid the taxes, therefore, invoked section 249(4)(b) of the Act. However, the Assessee has filed Return of Income for A.Y.2012-13 on 05.12.2019 electronically and paid the Tax of Rs.33

Laxmi Babu Debnath, Pune vs. ITO Ward 7(1), Pune

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

ITA 535/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.535 & 536/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Laxmi Babu Debnath, V The Income Tax Officer, Level 3, Riverside Business S Ward-7(1), Pune. Bay, Wellesley Road, Near Rto, Pune – 411001. Maharashtra. Pan: Acypd2630F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajiv Thakkar – Ar Revenue By Shri Madhan Thirmanpallil – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 14/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeal Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. These Two Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. We Treat Appeal In

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 249(4)Section 250Section 57

situations. In this case, ld.CIT(A) has stated that assessee has not filed Return of Income and not paid the taxes, therefore, invoked section 249(4)(b) of the Act. However, the Assessee has filed Return of Income for A.Y.2012-13 on 05.12.2019 electronically and paid the Tax of Rs.33

Sahyogh Nagri Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit, Jalna vs. ITO Ward-1, Jalna

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

ITA 36/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.36/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Sahyogh Nagri Sahkari Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Jalna. Patsanstha Maryadit, 17/85, Juna Monda Mahesh Nagar, Ambad, Dist. Jalna-431203. Pan : Abmfs8514J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prateek Jha Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 04.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.11.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Cooperative Credit Society & Has Not Furnished Its Return Of Income For The Period Under Consideration. On The Basis Of Information Available With The Department, It Was Noticed That The Assessee Has Deposited

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JhaFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 249Section 249(4)(b)Section 69A

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 ... case. It was the 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 4 the assessee was issued show cause to explain this point he did not chose to file

Rajesh Kanjibhai Koriya, Upleta vs. The ITO Ward 1 (2) (2) Rajkot, Rajkot

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 165/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.165/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Dipen Sukhdia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-DR
Section 144Section 250

delay. 6. I have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. I note that the ld.CIT(A) not admitted appeal section 249(4)(b) of the Act. Besides, assessee is ITA No. 165/Rjt/2025 A.Y 17-18 Rajeshbhai K Koriya a small businessman and not well versed with tax matter ... which is not chargeable to tax, therefore, assessee did not file return of income and did not pay advance tax, hence provisions of section 249(4)(b) do not attract; as alleged by Ld. CIT(A). I further note that ld. CIT(A) has not decided the issue in respect

Ravindra Balasaheb Raykar, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), Pune

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

ITA 284/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Yash Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(a)Section 249(4)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Yalamarthi Lakshmi, Yanam vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward- 1, Kakinada

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

ITA 189/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.189/Viz/2025 (धनिाारण िर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Yalamarthi Lakshmi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Yanam. Ward-1, Pan: Abhpy4417B Kakinada. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of : 20/05/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 249Section 249(4)(b)Section 28

appeal, 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: “5. The appellant has offered ‘not applicable’ comments at Sl. No.9 of Form-35 and the appellant faield to made payment ... case. 2. the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in erroneously dismissing the appeal in limine by invoking the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have quashed the notice issued U/s. 148 of the Act as barred by limitation. 4

Aloor Thomas Joy, Thrissur vs. ITO, Ward International Taxation, Kochi

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

ITA 1106/COCH/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Smt.Divya Ravindran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 147Section 148ASection 249(4)(b)

assessee failed to deposit the advance tax payable by him before filing of the return of income in terms of the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act. 2 ITA No.1106/Coch/2024. Aloor Thomas Joy. 3. Aggrieved with the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee has come

Kadavath Peedikayil Ashraf, Kannur vs. ITO, Ward-3, Kannur

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

ITA 1105/COCH/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 147Section 148ASection 249(4)(b)

assessee failed to deposit the advance tax payable by him before filing of the return of income in terms of the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act. 2 ITA No.1105/Coch/2024. Kadavath Peedikayil Ashraf. 3. Aggrieved with the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee has come

Kandasamy Govindaraj, Dharmapuri vs. ITO, Ward-1, Dharmapuri

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

ITA 365/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 364 & 365 /Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Kandasamy Govindaraj, Ito, 56, Anna Nagar, Rayappa Colony, Vs. Ward -1, Kumarasamypet Post, Dharmapuri. Dharmapuri – 636 703. [Pan: Anppg-2860-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. S. Mathangi, Advocate (Virtual)For Respondent: Mr. Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT
Section 147Section 249Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

order of the First Appellate Authority is bad and erroneous in law. 2. The learned First Appellate Authority erred in invoking Section 249 (4) (b), thereby dismissing the appeal on that ground without considering the fact that there was no advance tax payable by the appellant ... outset we find that the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the quantum appeal filed by the assessee without admitting appeal as per section 249(4)(b) of the Act. In our considered view the question of payment of advance tax as provided in section 249(4)(b) of the Act does

Kandasamy Govindaraj, Dharmapuri vs. ITO, Ward-1, Dharmapuri

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

ITA 364/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 364 & 365 /Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Kandasamy Govindaraj, Ito, 56, Anna Nagar, Rayappa Colony, Vs. Ward -1, Kumarasamypet Post, Dharmapuri. Dharmapuri – 636 703. [Pan: Anppg-2860-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. S. Mathangi, Advocate (Virtual)For Respondent: Mr. Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT
Section 147Section 249Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

order of the First Appellate Authority is bad and erroneous in law. 2. The learned First Appellate Authority erred in invoking Section 249 (4) (b), thereby dismissing the appeal on that ground without considering the fact that there was no advance tax payable by the appellant ... outset we find that the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the quantum appeal filed by the assessee without admitting appeal as per section 249(4)(b) of the Act. In our considered view the question of payment of advance tax as provided in section 249(4)(b) of the Act does

Sangeeta Kathuria, Gurgaon vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 49(1), Delhi

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

ITA 5888/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Sangeet Kathuria, Vs. Ito, D-49, 2Nd Floor, Suncity Ward-49(1), Sector-54, Chakarpur Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Bjnpk2905B

For Appellant: Shri Karanjot Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)

Column 9 as „not applicable‟. The ld NFAC observed that assessee had not paid the advance tax and thereby the provisions of Section 249(4)(b) of the Act stood violated by the assesese. Accordingly, the ld NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee as un-admitted. 6. We find ... advance tax liability that could be fastened on the assessee. Once there is no question of payment of advance tax, the provisions of Section 249(4)(b) of the Act cannot be pressed into service. Hence, we hold that the ld NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal as not maintainable

Ruhi Rana, Panchkula vs. ITO, Ward-3, Panchkula

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

ITA 352/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 352/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Ruhi Rana, The Ito, बनाम House No.858, Sector 4, Ward -3, Panchkula Panchkula Vs. C/O Vineet Gandhi & Vineet Thakral, Advocates, # 1491, Sector 4, Panchkula "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Cdrpr9229N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा""रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Vineet Thakral, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Add., Cit Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.05.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am : Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 09.02.2024 Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For A.Y. 2018-19. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Thakral, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Add., CIT Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249Section 249(4)(b)Section 270A

Assessee filed appeal but the same was dismissed on the reason that conditions for admission of appeal before CIT (A) as per section 249 (4) (b) was not fulfilled and liable to dismissed. 3. Brief facts of the case as per the assessment order are as under:- 1. The assessee

Abdulrehman Abdulhay Bhanapatel, Surat vs. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department, Ward 2(3)(1), Surat

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

ITA 20/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shripawan Singhand Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.20/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybridhearing) Abdulrehman Abdulhay Bhanapatel, Vs. The Ito, 18, Tekari Street, Eklera Bhanodra, Ward-2(3)(1), Choryasi, Surat - 394230 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Blnpb7848C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 156Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 50C

passed his order u/s 250 of the Act on 29.11.2023. In the order, he hasdiscussed about the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act that where no return has been filed by the assessee, the assessee has to pay an amount equal to the amount of advance ... No.20/SRT/2024/AY.2014-15 AbdulrehmanAbdulhayBhanapatel above, the ld. AR submits that the appeal may be set aside directing the CIT(A) not to invoke Section 249(4)(b) of the Act and decide the matter on merit. 6. On the other hand, learned Senior DepartmentalRepresentative (ld.Sr. DR) for the revenue has strongly relied

Warangal Club, Hanamkonda vs. ITO, Ward-1, Warangal

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

ITA 109/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Smt. S. Sandhya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Praveen, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)

Praveen, learned Sr.AR on the other hand, supporting the order of the learned CIT(A) submitted that, as per the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act, where no return has been filed by an assessee, the assessee shall pay an amount equal to the amount of advance ... arise. However, even in a case where the appellant does not required to pay advance tax, but, as per the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act, the appellant needs to file an application before 7 ITA.No.109/Hyd./2025 the CIT(A) and explain the reasons

Manoj Prabhakar Kudtharkar, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 2322/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: None
Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)

Ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal as infructuous since the assessee had not paid the amount equal to the advance tax as per section 249(4)(b) of the Act. As against the said order of the Ld.CIT(A), the present appeal has been filed by the assessee ... circumstances, the Ld.CIT(A) could not have dismissed the appeal as if the assessee had not filed his return of income and therefore section 249(4)(b) would apply. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee had filed his return of income and therefore the correct provision to be applied