“Section 249(3)”

Section References (mined)Section 249Section 249(3)640 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 249(3) is Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471), cited in 3,926 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 249(3)

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji

167 ITR 471 · 1987 · Supreme Court

3,926

citing judgments

Delay in filing appeals, when supported by sufficient or justifiable cause, should be condoned with a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice. This principle prioritizes the cause of justice over mere technicalities.

Tin Box Company v. CIT

249 ITR 216 · 2001 · Supreme Court

624

citing judgments

When an issue is remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, the AO must conduct a de novo examination and provide the assessee a full opportunity of being heard. The assessee is bound to comply with the notices issued by the AO.

Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy

7 SCC 123 · 1998 · Supreme Court

368

citing judgments

The Supreme Court outlines the principles for condoning delay in filing appeals, stating that a litigant's lapse is not always a bar if the explanation is bona fide and not a dilatory strategy. Courts should show utmost consideration to suitors and prioritize substantial justice unless the delay is deliberately to gain time.

Vishin Meghani v. DCIT & Anr

398 ITR 250 · 2017 · High Court

291

citing judgments

This case is cited as an authority supporting the condonation of delay in filing income tax appeals, particularly when an assessee presents a request for such condonation.

Sreenivas Charitable Trust v. Dy. CIT

280 ITR 357 · 2006 · High Court

182

citing judgments

The expression "sufficient cause" for condoning delay in filing appeals must receive a liberal and purposive construction. This approach aims to advance substantial justice, which is of paramount importance.

Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. v. Ms Katiji and Others

167 ITR 5 · 1987 · Supreme Court

164

citing judgments

The principle of 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay in filing appeals requires a liberal interpretation to ensure substantial justice, but delay will not be condoned if sufficient cause is not satisfactorily explained by the appellant.

National Textiles v. CIT

249 ITR 125 · 2001 · High Court

134

citing judgments

The levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) requires material evidence that the assessed amount does not represent the assessee's income and proof of conscious concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. A penalty cannot be sustained merely because income is assessed on an estimation basis without positive evidence of concealment.

Director of Income Tax v. Society For Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications

323 ITR 249 · 2010 · High Court

128

citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings are invalid if the Assessing Officer fails to issue a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act after the assessee files a return in response to a Section 148 notice and scrutinizes that return.

Judgments citing Section 249(3)

Dhanesh Jyotindra Kothari, Mumbai Suburban vs. Income Tax Office(It)-3(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2952/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 2952 & 2951/Mum/2023 (A.Y: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Dhanesh Jyotindra Vs. Ito (It) – 3(1)(1), Kothari,A-Wing, Flat No. Air India Bldg, 6, Mahavir Krupa, Nariman Point, Vallabh Baug Lane, Mumbai-400021. Extn. Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai-4000077 Pan/Gir No. : Adapk9004H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Kirit.S.Sanghvi.Ar Respondent By : Shri. G.J.Ninawe. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 03.11.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 147 R.W.S 144C & U/Sec 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri.Kirit.S.Sanghvi.ARFor Respondent: Shri. G.J.Ninawe. Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 2952 & 2951/Mum/2023

Bharatbhai Naginbhai Patel, Ankleshwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(4), Bharuch

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

ITA 393/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.393/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Bharatbhai Nagjibhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, 392, Nishal Faliu, Nava Haripura, Ward- 2(4), Sajod, Ankleshwar, Bharuch, Bharuch, Gujarat – 393020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bpppp4227M (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Ashutosh P. Nanavaty, Ca Appellant By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 16/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2023

Section 143(3)Section 249(3)

assessment order and simply dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine in view of the non-compliance of the provision of section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Faceless Appeal Scheme 2020 Paragraph 5(1)(ii)(b). 6. The ld Counsel has filed the petition

Dinesh Infrastructure Private Limited, Jodhpur vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Jodhpur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 76/JODH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur04 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Section 154Section 200ASection 234E

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM ITA

Dinesh Infrastrurcture Private Limited, Jodhpur vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Jodhpur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 75/JODH/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur04 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Section 154Section 200ASection 234E

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM ITA

Shre Vile Parle Gujarati Mandal Chsl, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 25(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 1769/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Manshi Padhiar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anurag Tripathi, DR

Section 249(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

delay in filling of present appeal. The Assessee despite being given number of opportunities also not furnished any explanation in this regard. Section 249(3) of the Act discretionary in nature and the Assessee has to satisfy by explaining the sufficient cause for the delay. The Ld. Commissioner also observed

Mohd Abid, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward 2(1)(3), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 1508/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2016-17

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 194Section 250Section 40Section 40A(3)

served by condoning inordinate delay of 168 days. Therefore, appeal stand dismissed in limine in view of non- compliance of the provision of section 249(3) of Income tax Act, 1961 read with Faceless Appeal Scheme 2020 Paragraph 5(1 )(ii)(b).” 5.1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court

ACIT -14 (2), Mumbai vs. Redwood I.T. Services P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1643/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm)

Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271ESection 273B

under:- “23. The expression 'reasonable cause' used in Section 273B is not defined under the Act. Unlike the expression 'sufficient cause' used in Section 249(3), 253(5) and 260A(2A) of the Act, the legislature has used the expression 'reasonable cause' in Section 273B of the Act. A cause

Nikita Kingrani, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-TDS Ward, Bhilai, Durg

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of our observations above

ITA 231/RPR/2023[2016-17 (First Quarter)]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 200ASection 234ESection 249(3)

protect the long and established user and to indirectly punish persons who go into a long slumber over their rights. 5.2. Under section 249(3) of IT Act, 1961, first appellate authority may on good and sufficient reasons for delay being shown, admit appeal after expiry of limitation of time ... would not be served by condoning inordinate delay of 3170 days. Therefore, appeal to be dismissed in limine in view of provision of section 249 (3) of Income tax Act, 1961 read with Faceless Appeal Scheme 2021 Paragraph 5(1)(ii)(a). 6. In the result, appeal is dismissed

Nikita Kingrani, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-TDS Ward, Bhilai, Durg

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of our observations above

ITA 230/RPR/2023[2015-16 (Second Quarter)]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 200ASection 234ESection 249(3)

Nikita Kingrani, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-TDS Ward, Bhilai, Durg

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of our observations above

ITA 229/RPR/2023[2015-16 (First Quarter)]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 200ASection 234ESection 249(3)

Nikita Kingrani, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-TDS Ward, Bhilai, Durg

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of our observations above

ITA 228/RPR/2023[2013-14 (Fourth Quarter)]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 200ASection 234ESection 249(3)

Nikita Kingrani, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-TDS Ward, Bhilai, Durg

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of our observations above

ITA 227/RPR/2023[2013-14 (Third Quarter)]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 200ASection 234ESection 249(3)

Nikita Kingrani, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-TDS Ward, Bhilai, Durg

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of our observations above

ITA 226/RPR/2023[2013-14 (Second Quarter)]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 200ASection 234ESection 249(3)

Dr Arvind Joshi, Bhopal vs. ACIT-CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 372/IND/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2011-12 Dr. Arvind Joshi, Acit – Cpc, A-1/201, Paras City, Bangalore बनाम/ E-3, Arera Colony, Bhopal Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aavpj3024C Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.08.2023

Section 143(1)Section 249(3)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY

Srd Management Company, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-22(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 1237/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R.Kumar[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Srd Management Company, Vs Dcit, 304, 3Rd Floor, 44 Deenar Circle-22(2), Bhawan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi-110019. Pan-Aamcs3799K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Bawa Kanwarjit Singh, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 01.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2023

part of appellant and it was not guilty of negligence. It is further held that sufficient cause within contemplation of provisions of Section 249(3) must be a cause which is beyond control of party invoking aid of provisions. In the case of T. Kishan [2012] 23 taxmann.com

Mh Brothers, Raisen vs. The ITO, Raisen

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 371/IND/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 249(2)Section 250

condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed in limini as time barred without going into the merits of the case. Section 249(3) gives a discretion to the CIT(A) to admit a belated appeal if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting

Mh Brothers, Raisen vs. The ITO, Raisen

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 370/IND/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 249(2)Section 250

Shri Ashwinkumar C. Zala, Surendranagar vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Surendranagar Circle, Surendranagar

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

ITA 66/RJT/2019[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot05 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Appellate Commissioner With Effect From 01-03-2016, For All Persons Who Are Required To Furnish Their Return Of Income Electronically. Though The Assessee Vide Its Letter Dated 13-05- 2017 Explained He Already Filed Online Appeal Under Rule 45 On 01- 05-2017 With Acknowledgement No. 766897990010507. Due To Technical Reason That His Aadhar Was Not Able To Match Pan Data. There Was Technical Delay In Online Filing & Requested To Condone The Same. Though The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Extracted The Above Letter Of The Assessee In This Impugned Order, But Simply Dismissed The Appeal In Limine.

Section 143(3)Section 249(3)

never field any assessments electronically before that judgment date 6. Respondent does not mentioned in judgment, any reasons rejection of grace requested under section 249(3) in our reply dated 13-05-2017, reasons to file electronically late for technical reason. 7. At the time of submission of my appeal

Fakhri Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd.Ustee Company Ltd As Trustee for Fccb Issued by Jindal Saw Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A), Delhi

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

ITA 785/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryfakhri Co-Operative Versus Commissioner Of Housing Society Ltd. Income Tax 422, Matharpakhadi Road, (Appeals) Mazgaon, Nfac, Delhi. Maharashtra-400010. Pan: Aaaaf1078N Appellant Respondent Appellant/Assessee By : Sh. Murtaza Quresh Ghandiali & Ms. Sabeena Darukhanawal, Ar Respondent/Department By : Ms. Mini Vinod, Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/05/2023 Order Narender Kumar Choudhry, J.M: This Assessee/Appellant Herein Has Preferred This Appeal Against The Order Dated 12.01.2023 Impugned Herein Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) / Nfac, Delhi {In Short ‘Ld. Commissioner’} U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For Ay 2013-14. Fakhri Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. 2. In This Case, The Appellant Earned Interest From Co- Operative & Other Banks & Therefore, Filed Its Return Of Income For The Ay 2013-14 On 22.08.2013 Which Was Processed By Cpc & Vide Intimation Dated 12.11.2014 Under Section 143(1) Of The Act, The Amounts Of Rs. 2,08,071/- & Rs. 50,000/- Have Not Been Considered Under Section 80P(2)(C)(Ii) & Consequently Disallowed.

For Appellant: Sh. Murtaza QureshFor Respondent: Ms. Mini Vinod, DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 249Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 80P(2)(c)

case of delay due to deliberate inaction on the part of the appellant. As no sufficient cause has been shown under section 249(3) of the Act for the appellants failure to file the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation under section 249(2) of the Act r.w.s

Shree Swamy Samarth Prassana Oshiwara (E) Units Chs Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 25(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

ITA 237/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shree Swamy Samarth, Ito-25(1)(3), Prassana Oshiwara (E) Unit C-10, Room No. 404, 4Th 3 Chs Ltd. Vs. Floor, Pratyakshakar Oshiwara (E) Unit 3 Chs Bhavan, Bkc, Ltd., Plot No. 1/41, Deep Mumbai-400051. Tower, New Link Road, Near Millat Nagar, Andheri (West) Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aacas 7886 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Tarun Ghia Revenue By : Mr. A.N. Bhalekar, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 10/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 22/05/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Tarun GhiaFor Respondent: Mr. A.N. Bhalekar, CIT-DR

Section 144Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA