“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)

Ritika Jain, Thane vs. ITO(It Tp), Bhopal, Aaykar Bhavan

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 632/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshiritika Jain, Cit (Appeals), बना A-504, Laxmi Residency Chs Nfac, म/ Ltd, Delhi Vs. Opposite Datta Mandir Check Naka, Wagle Estate, Thane

Section 142(1)Section 144CSection 148Section 148ASection 250Section 253

which was payable by him and if he had not made such payment whether he wants exemption from operation of provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act. The appellant has failed to do so. It is, therefore, clear that the appellant has not made payment of amount equal ... dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine for want of payment of tax as per the provisions of Section 249(4)(b) of the Act. This is a case of reassessment framed by Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the ACT and therefore, there is no obligation

Chattar Singh, Mohali vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(4), Mohali

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 459/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A. and Smt. Shruti Khandelwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 249(2)(b)Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)

appeal filed by the assessee primarily on two grounds: That the assessee failed to pay the advance tax equivalent as required o under section 249(4)(b) of the Act since no return of income was filed. That the appeal was filed beyond the statutory time limit of 30 days

Kalpana Subramaniam, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 13(1), Pune

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

ITA 514/PUN/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Apr 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.514/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Kalpana Subramaniam, V The Income Tax Officer, 19A, B/H Regene Park, Ganpati S Ward-13(1), Pune. Chowk, Lunkad Towers, Pune – 411014. Maharashtra. Pan: Aswps7131C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Akashay Surana (Virtual Hearing) Revenue By Shri Harish Bist – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: Thisappeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 28.12.2024For Assessment Year 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal

Section 148Section 148ASection 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 250oSection 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”एस एम सी” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.DIPAK

The Shahpur Primary Co Operative Consumer Stores Limited, Shahpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Dharmshala

The appeals are allowed for

ITA 430/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 248 & 430/Chd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Shahpur Primary Co-Operative Vs The Ito, Consumer Stores Ltd., Ward No.6, Ward – Dharamshala. Shahpur, Disttl – Kangra (Hp). "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aacat6709J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Parveen Sharma, Advocate For Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate Revenue By : Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.04.2025

For Appellant: Shri Parveen Sharma, Advocate for Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr.DR

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

said penalty before the CIT(A); however, the penalty appeal was dismissed on the ground of non-compliance with the mandatory requirement under Section 249(4)(b) of the Act, without adjudicating the merits of the penalty. Since the quantum addition, which forms the basis of the penalty, has been

The Shahpur Primary Co Operative Consumer Stores Limited, War No vs. Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Office Ward- Dharmshala

The appeals are allowed for

ITA 248/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Parveen Sharma, Advocate for Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr.DR

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

Shrikant Chandrakant Lokhande, Latur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Latur

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

ITA 2696/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2696/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ganesh Vijaykumar PawarFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Manish Sinha

Section 115BSection 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 208Section 234B(1)Section 249Section 249(4)

filed by the appellant for Not the assessment year, Not whether an amount equal applicable 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 ... b) of the Act without appreciating the contention of the assessee 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

Chandrakala Narala, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 2575/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri. Pranit Tanna, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 282ASection 69A

appellant was not given an Single opportunity to provide Explanation by National Faceless Appeal Centre to seek exemption from the provisions of Section 249(4)(b) and declared the Appeal Filed as lnfructuous. This constitutes a procedural error and Deprived the Appellant from being heard. 4. That the Assessment Unit

Aruna Singh, Thane vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Kalyan

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

ITA 2387/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 143Section 144BSection 147Section 156Section 208Section 210Section 234B(1)Section 249Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)

return has been filed by the appellant for 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 Not applicable 3. 2. As per provisions of section 249(4)(b ... above, the assessee and/or her authorized representative could not attend the hearing during the assessment proceedings. He further submitted that the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act is not applicable to the assessee's case as the assessee is having income below taxable limit and is therefore

Jinto Chettiyakunnel Thomas, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 2420/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Kirath Singh, Advocate

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC-‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K

Rakeshkumar K. Jain, Na vs. Arivs.ITO, Ward 4, Navsari

ITA 1332/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Surat03 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Darshit J Naik, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Rakesh K. Jain, Na vs. Arivs.ITO, Ward 4, Navsari

ITA 1331/SRT/2024[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Surat03 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Darshit J Naik, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 69

which was payable by him and if he had not made such payment whether he wants exemption from operation of provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act. The appellant has failed to do so. It is, therefore, clear that the appellant has not made payment of amount equal ... into consideration the various submissions / details / evidences furnished by the assessee, dismissed appeal of the assessee for want of payments of taxes under Section 249(4)(b) of the Act. 7. In our considered view, Ld. CIT(A) has taken an unreasonable approach while dismissing the appeal of the assessee

Sanjay Kumar Gupta, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-55(5), New Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 1059/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishras. G. Joshi (Huf) Vs. Income Tax Officer, B-4/33, Safdarjung Enclave, Circle 29(1) New Delhi-110029 New Delhi Pan: Aaihs9281F

Section 147Section 249(4)(b)

Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Ld. Assessee's Representative submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) committed error in invoking the provision of Section 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) and erred in dismissing the Appeal of the Assessee ignoring the fact that ... Assessee filed an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), challenging the assessment order dated 13/05/2023, which has been dismissed by invoking provision of Section 249(4)(b) of the Act. 5. The provision of Section 249(4)(b) of the Act is applicable only when no return has been filed

Sagar Jaywant Elawande, Pune vs. ITO, Ward13(1), Pune

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

ITA 224/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.224/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sagar Jaywant Elawande, Vs. Ito, Ward-13(1), Pune. 457, Shaniwar Peth, Pune City, Pune- 411030. Pan : Aampe1025B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Digambar Surwase Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Derived Income From Salary & Also Sold Immovable Property But Return Of Income Was Not Filed. On The Basis Of Above Information, The Case Was Reopened U/S 147 & Notices U/S 148A(B), 148 & 142(1) Respectively Were Issued To The Assessee. Since The Assessee Did Not Reply To Any Of The Notices

For Appellant: Shri Digambar SurwaseFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 147Section 148ASection 249Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 69

assessee. In this regard, we find that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has dismissed the appeal of the assessee with reference to section 249(4)(b) of the IT Act. Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC was of the view that since the assessee has not furnished his income tax return ... facts of the case, we find force in the arguments of the counsel of the assessee & accordingly hold, that in the light of section 249(4)(b) of the Act the assessee was required to pay advance tax on the basis of Admitted Tax & not on the basis of Assessed

Mahalaxmi Automobiles, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(1), Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 6743/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeemahalaxmi Automobiles Vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Survey No.13, 14./3, Next 70 Thane, Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, Road Hotel Sagar, Bhivandi Road, Vasai- 401202 No.16Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Pan : Abdfm6069L Thane (West)- 400 604 Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rohit TapadiaFor Respondent: Shri. R.R Makwana, Addl.CIT

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 156Section 249Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 69A

challenged the order before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) rejected the appeal petition on the technical ground of non compliance of section 249(4)(b) of the Act as the assessee has failed to pay the advance-tax before filing of appeal. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) conceded ... that the assessee is a non filer, so section 249(4)(b) of the Act should be complied during filing of appeal. In perusal of Form 35related appeal petition, in serial No.9 has been specifically mentioned that where no return has been filed, the assessee should pay the equal amount

Senniappan Mani, Tirupur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Tiruppur

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3230/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3230/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-2018) Senniappan Mani, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.7, Sivasakthi Nagar, Ward 2(1) 1St Street, K T C Main Road, Tirupur. Parappalayam, Tirupur 641 604. [Pan: Bbnpm 7005C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Senthil Kumar, Advocate Virtual, Erode ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. V. Aswathy, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.03.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 01.02.2024 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 232 Days In Filing The Appeal. Considering The Period Of Delay & Reasons Stated In Condonation Affidavit Given By The Assessee, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Adjudication. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment Was Completed U/S 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Act Wherein Ao Had Made Addition Of Rs.1,00,98,950/- U/S 69 On Account Of Unexplained Investment & Rs.1,11,66,838/- U/S 69A On Account Of Unexplained Money. Assessee Further Challenged The Order Of Assessment U/S 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Act Before The Ld.Cit(A) Who Did Not Admit The Appeal Of The Assessee For The Reason That The Assessee Has Not Paid An Amount Equal To The Amount Of Advance Tax Which Was Payable In The Light Of The Mandatory Provision Of Section 249(4)(B) Of The Act. The Assessee Is Now In Appeal Before The Tribunal With The Following Grounds:-

For Appellant: Shri. Senthil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. V. Aswathy, JCIT

Section 147Section 207Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(a)Section 249(4)(b)Section 69Section 69A

paid an amount equal to the amount of advance tax which was payable in the light of the mandatory provision of section 249(4)(b) of the Act. The Assessee is now in appeal before the tribunal with the following grounds:- ‘’1) The Impugned Order is bad, erroneous and unsustainable ... reasoned order holding that the Assessee was liable to file income tax return for Assessment Year 2017-18 and therefore as per section 249(4)(b) the Assessee was required to pay the amount equal to amount of advance tax, which was payable by him. 7. We have given thoughtful

Mohd. Haroon Abdullah Azmi, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 565/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Om Kandalkar, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 208Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

challenged the said additions before the Ld. Commissioner, however, of no avail, as the Ld. Commissioner by taking refuge of the provision of section 249(4)(b) of the Act, dismissed the appeal of the Assessee in limine, by observing and holding as under: “That the Assessee has not filed ... which is not taxable at all and therefore no advance tax was/is payable by him, as mandated in the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act and therefore the decision of the Ld. Commissioner in dismissing the appeal of the Assessee in limine is contrary to the relevant

Suneetha Marthala, Kavali vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nellore

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

ITA 1195/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri M.A.Rahim, ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR

Section 249(4)(b)

this appeal. 2. At the outset, the learned AR brought to our notice that the learned CIT(A) while invoking the provisions under section 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), missed the proviso thereunder and thereby declined to entertain the appeal. Learned CIT(A) observed ... proceed ex-parte and the learned CIT(A) is correct from declining to exempt the assessee from paying advance tax under section 249(4)(b) of the Act. 4. We have gone through the record in light of the submissions made on either side. By way of letter dated 18/09/2024

Perumal Pillai Sreenivasan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-9(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3186/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 3186/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Perumalpillai Sreenivasan, Income Tax Officer, Block No.20 Flat 3078, Vs. Non Corp Ward -9(1), Jevvan Bheem Collector Nagar, Chennai. Anna Nagar West, Chennai – 600 101 [Pan: Bbbps-1465-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Abhishek Murali, Ca : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 26.02.2025 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 18.03.2025 : आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 06.11.2024 & Pertains To Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Order Of The Ao/Cit(A) Is Erroneous, Is Contrary To Law, Opposed To Principles Of Natural Justice & The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. Cit(A) Has Failed To Adjudicate The Case: 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Failed To Adjudicate The Appeal On Incorrect Grounds.

For Appellant: 5. The Learned AO/CIT(A) failed to note that the cash deposited into the account

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

assessee has offered ‘Not applicable’ comments. Therefore, the ld.CIT(A) held that the assessee has not paid the advance in compliance with section 249(4)(b) of the Act, where no return has been filed by the assessee, the assessee has paid an amount equal to the amount of advance ... been filed by the appellant for the assessment Not year, whether an amount equal to the amount of advance tax as applicable 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

Sh. Vikesh Kumar, Haryana vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Alwar

In the result, Ground No. 1

ITA 1417/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT

Section 139Section 144Section 148Section 194ASection 249Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 44A

amount of advance tax which was payable by it, the appeal is not liable to be admitted by incorrectly interpreting the provisions of section 249 (4)(b) of the IT Act, 1961. 2. The Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in not deciding the appeal ... turn dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has violated the provisions of section 249(4) (b) of the Act. The assessee being further aggrieved filed the present appeal before us. 3. We have gone through the order of the AO, order

Mr Harilal Santhosh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 33(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 774/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 774/Mum/2024 (Ay 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Mr. Harilal Santhosh, 47/48, Kakad Kunj, Dwarkesh Park, Kandivali (West), Mumbai-400067. [Pan : Ajjps 0926 P] अपीलार्थी/Appellant Vs Income Tax Officer Ward- 33(1)(5), Room No. 915, 9Th Floor, Kautilya Bhawan, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee By Sh. Bharat Gandhi, Ar राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Sh. Anil Gupta Sr Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 27.02.2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As “Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)"] Dated 03.01.2024 For

Section 115BSection 144Section 156Section 249(4)(b)Section 254(1)Section 69A

assessment was completed by Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 144. The Id CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine for non-compliance of section 249(4)(b) of the Act. We find that on similar set of facts, the Surat Bench in Sumeet Jagdish Prasad Pareek ... account. When total income is below taxable income during the year, question of payment of advance tax does not arise and provisions of Section 249(4)(b) of the Act are not applicable. We find that similar issue had come up for consideration before this Bench in ITA No.646/SRT/2023