← All Phrases

“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)

Kailash Chandra Patidar, Shajapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Shajapur

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 216/IND/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Nov 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 246ASection 249(3)Section 250Section 253

stated hereunder:- “In view of the above detailed discussion, it is held that the appellant has no "sufficient cause" in terms of section 249(3) of the Act, for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed period. It is well-settled law that an appellant is not entitled

Kailash Chandra Patidar, Shajapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Shajapur

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 196/IND/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Nov 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 246ASection 249(3)Section 250Section 253

stated hereunder:- “In view of the above detailed discussion, it is held that the appellant has no "sufficient cause" in terms of section 249(3) of the Act, for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed period. It is well-settled law that an appellant is not entitled

Shahbaz Mohammed Shafeeque, Malegaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Malegaon

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

ITA 2291/PUN/2025[2015 - 16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Nov 2025

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2291/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shahbaz Mohammed V The Income Tax Officer, Shafeeque, S. Ward-1, Malegaon. House No.904, Lane No.2, Malegaon City S.O., Malegaon, Nashik, Malegaon – 423203. Maharashtra. Pan: Cfppm6844A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi (Virtual) Revenue By Smt Saumya Pandey Jain-Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: In This Case, Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commisioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2015-16 Dated 28.02.2025. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

Accordingly, this appeal is delayed by 126 days for which the assessee has failed to submit sufficient cause for delay as per section 249(3) of the Act. Therefore, I am satisfied that the appellant 3 ITA No.2291/PUN/2025 [A] did not have sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within

Hitec Cyberspazio LLP, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1206/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Us:

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69

dated 12/06/2025. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) had thereafter declined to exercise the discretion vested with him under section 249(3) of the Act to condone the delay involved in the present appeal filed before him, and by drawing support from a host of judicial pronouncements

Vissanji A 1 Friends Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 20(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4801/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vishwas Mehendale (Virtually), CAFor Respondent: Smt. Smitha V. Nair, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 80ASection 80P(2)(d)

furnished by the assessee explaining the substantial delay in filing the said appeal. He referred to the provisions of Section 249(2) and Section 249(3) to note that under the said section, the delay may be condone and the appeal may be admitted only if assessee could successfully demonstrate

Vissanji A 1 Friends Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 20(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4800/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vishwas Mehendale (Virtually), CAFor Respondent: Smt. Smitha V. Nair, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80A

furnished by the assessee explaining the substantial delay in filing the said appeal. He referred to the provisions of Section 249(2) and Section 249(3) to note that under the said section, the delay may be condone and the appeal may be admitted only if assessee could successfully demonstrate

Vissanji A 1 Friends Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 20(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4796/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vishwas Mehendale (Virtually), CAFor Respondent: Smt. Smitha V. Nair, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80A

furnished by the assessee explaining the substantial delay in filing the said appeal. He referred to the provisions of Section 249(2) and Section 249(3) to note that under the said section, the delay may be condone and the appeal may be admitted only if assessee could successfully demonstrate

Vissanji A 1 Friends Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 20(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4795/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vishwas Mehendale (Virtually), CAFor Respondent: Smt. Smitha V. Nair, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80A

furnished by the assessee explaining the substantial delay in filing the said appeal. He referred to the provisions of Section 249(2) and Section 249(3) to note that under the said section, the delay may be condone and the appeal may be admitted only if assessee could successfully demonstrate

Vissanji A 1 Friends Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 20(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4794/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vishwas Mehendale (Virtually), CAFor Respondent: Smt. Smitha V. Nair, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80A

furnished by the assessee explaining the substantial delay in filing the said appeal. He referred to the provisions of Section 249(2) and Section 249(3) to note that under the said section, the delay may be condone and the appeal may be admitted only if assessee could successfully demonstrate

Surjit Singh Parmar, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer, Jalandhar

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

ITA 303/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv. &
Section 144Section 249(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

case due to the fact that the appeal is filed belatedly, by more than two years, and is hit by the provisions of section 249(3) of the Act 61 and the other ground of appeal is against the merits of the case. 3. Brief facts emerging are that ... matter carried in first appeal has been dismissed by the Ld CIT (A), in limine, by invoking the provisions of section 249(3) of the Act , refusing to admit the appeal for adjudication on merits , because the appeal was belatedly filed which was delayed by more than two years

Nidhi Jain, Gali No., Sbi Colony, Fafadih, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.), Civil Lines

ITA 659/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 659/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2013-14)

For Appellant: None (adjournment application)For Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, CIT-DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(3)Section 250Section 69A

thereafter decide the matter on merits, if the assessee succeed in getting the condonation of delay in accordance with the provisions of section 249(3). 4 Nidhi Jain Vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur 7. Ld. CIT- DR representing the matter on behalf of the revenue, on this count

Rishnoor Kaur, Ireland vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 476/CHANDI/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Dhiman, Advocate (Virtual Mode)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 249(3)

intended to gain any advantage. In these circumstances, the assessee has satisfactorily demonstrated “sufficient cause” for the delay within the meaning of section 249(3), as interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. A strictly pedantic or hyper-technical approach, as adopted

Kripa Ranjan Debbarma, Agartala vs. ITO, Ward - 1, Agartala

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 122/GTY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Your Honour Against The Rejection Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre Passed On 25.11.2024 & In The Matter Have E-Filed The Appeal In Form 35 Online With Grounds Of Appeal On 16.05.2025 & The Appeal Fee Rs. 10,000 Is Also Paid. However The Above Appeal Has Been Filed With A Delay Of 105 Days As The Appeal Was Supposed To Be Filed By 60 Days From The Date Of Order Ie. 25.11.2024 But Filed On 16.05.2025. Sir, I Am Not Able To Attend To My Regular Duties & Tasks. I Am 72 Years & Am Suffering From Depression & Various Age Related Issues. I Am Under Medical

Section 249(3)Section 250

first appeal in limine, on the ground that the Ld. CIT(A) did not detect any “sufficient cause”, for delay as, mandated under Section 249(3) of the Act. 2.2 Before us, the Ld. AR mentioned that even in the affidavit filed before the ITAT for requesting condoning of delay

Ambar Resources Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1569/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Varis Isani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 148Section 148ASection 249Section 69C

Departmental notices in time. The CIT(Appeals) held that the assessee failed to demonstrate “sufficient cause” within the meaning of section 249(3) and dismissed the appeal as time-barred, relying Ambar Resources Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO Asst.Year –2018-19 - 4– on several judicial precedents such as P.K. Ramachandran

Vinaya Prasanna Kulkarni, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 5726/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2019-2020

For Respondent: Mr. Haridas Bhatt
Section 115BSection 69A

stated can't be relied upon and therefore, . Hence, the reason stated can't be relied upon and therefore, as provided in the section 249 (3) of the IT Act. Accordingly, I am as provided in the section 249 (3) of the IT Act. Accordingly, I am as provided ... section 249 (3) of the IT Act. Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the appellate had sufficient cause for not not satisfied that the appellate had sufficient cause for not not satisfied that the appellate had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the specified period. Hence, since presenting

Sri Tirumala Estates and Farmlands, Visakhapatnam vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 552/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 40

filing the appeal does not merit condonation and the appeal is treated to be filed late with reference to the provisions of section 249(3) of the Act. The same is accordingly dismissed without going into the merits of the case.” 6. Aggrieved by the order

Sri Tirumala Estates and Farmlands, Visakhapatnam vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 551/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 40

filing the appeal does not merit condonation and the appeal is treated to be filed late with reference to the provisions of section 249(3) of the Act. The same is accordingly dismissed without going into the merits of the case.” 6. Aggrieved by the order

New Navhind Multipurpose Multistate Co-Operative Society, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 256/PAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (Judicial Member)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH PANAJI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I T A. Nos

Ashap Kumar Shantiel Bara, Raigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Raigarh

ITA 487/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur13 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 486 & 487/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri S. R. Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 249(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

allowing opportunity and arriving at a conclusion that the appellant has failed to justify the delay in filing appeal by invoking provisions of section 249(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income ... allowing opportunity and arriving at a conclusion that the appellant has failed to justify the delay in filing appeal by invoking provisions of section 249(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income

Sahyadri Sahakari Patpedhi Ltd., Vashi, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Vashi

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

ITA 5679/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Sahyadri Sahakari Income Tax Officer, Patpedhi Ltd., Ward No.28(3)(1), Bldg No.D-1/0-6, Sector 1, Vs. 3Rd Floor, Tower No.06, Vashi, Vashi Railway Station Bldg., Navi Mumbai – 400 703 Vashi, Pan: Aadas1023P Navi Mumbai – 400703 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Sushant Alme, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Sunil Mathews, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.11.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 14.07.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Addl/Jcit (A) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2019-20. 2. Considering The Peculiar Fact That The Ld. Commissioner Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee In Limine For Want Of Limitation, The Application For Adjournment Filed By The Assessee, Stands Rejected.

For Appellant: Shri Sushant Alme, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Mathews, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2019