← All Phrases

“Section 249(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 249Section 249(2)529 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 249(2) is Vishin Meghani v. DCIT & Anr (398 ITR 250), cited in 291 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 249(2)

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.

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.

State Lotteries & Ors. (2001) 249 ITR 186 and Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association v. Union of India
257 ITR 202 · 2002 · High Court
121
citing judgments

Supplementary commission forional or extra services does not fall within the ambit of Section 194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This may affect the applicability of certificates issued under Section 197.

Jt. CIT v. Tractors and Farm Equipments Ltd.
104 ITD 149 · 2007 · ITAT
118
citing judgments

A delay in filing an appeal cannot be condoned if it is attributable to the assessee's negligence or inaction, such as misplacing and forgetting the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order. The provisions relating to limitation apply with rigour, and a lack of due care and attention is not a sufficient reason for condonation.

CIT v. Veekay Lal Investments Co. Pvt. Ltd.
249 ITR 597 · 2001 · High Court
99
citing judgments

Book profits under Section 115JB must include income by way of capital gains, similar to how total income is calculated under Section 45.

CIT v. Shambhu Investment Pvt. Ltd.
249 ITR 47 · 2001 · High Court
57
citing judgments

Income from letting out immovable property, even with ancillary services, is taxable as 'Income from House Property' if the dominant intention is to exploit the property itself, not to run a complex business providing integrated services. The classification depends on the assessee's primary object in exploiting the property.

Judgments citing Section 249(2)

Ramesh Lalawat, Vashi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 28(2)(1), Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 8838/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Ramesh Lalawat Income Tax Officer, Room No 102, Goma Sadan Ward 28(2)(1), Plot No 400, Mumbai Nr Cisf, Juhu Gaon Vs. Sector No. 11, Vashi, Navi Mumbai - 400703 (Pan: Aeepl2218K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Ajay R. Singh, Advocate Revenue : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1074653077(1), Dated 18.03.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Mum-W-(272)(91), U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 15.09.2023, For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 249Section 249(2)Section 3Section 5

appeal of appellant merely stating the appellant's appeal was not filed on time within the time limit as per the provisions of section 249(2) of the Act and rejected the application for condonation of delay of 114 days in filing the appeal. 2 ... from ground no.1 raised by the assessee that first appeal before the ld. CIT(A) was also barred by limitation under provisions of section 249(2) on account of delay of 114 days in filing the said appeal, whereby ld. CIT(A) had rejected the application for condonation of delay

Vinod Kumar Kailashchandra Verma, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Raipur

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

ITA 69/RPR/2026[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 69/Rpr/2026 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vinod Kumar Khailashchandra Verma, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), House No.496/9, Avanti Vihar, Sector-2, Central Revenue Building, Telibandha, Raipur-492001 (C.G.) Civil Lines, Raipur, C.G. 492001 Pan: Aanpv5964B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None. (Adjournment Petition Filed.) राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 06/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

For Appellant: None. (Adjournment petition filed.)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 69A

assessment order as 25.03.2025, and since the appeal was filed on 06.04.2025, he claims that the appeal is within the time prescribed under section 249(2) of the Act. 4 Vinod Kumar Kailashchandra Verma vs. ITO, Ward-3(1) Further, to substantiate his claim of non-service of the assessment