“Section 249(4)”

Section References (mined)Section 249Section 249(4)422 judgments

ANEEMONI NAGA RAJU,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 2074/HYD/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Mar 2026AY 2020-2021

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 249(4)(b)Section 69A

nCIT(A) on the following grounds of appeal:\n1. The order of the Id. CIT(A) dated 30.09.2025 dismissing the appeal\nsolely under Section 249(4)(b) without providing an opportunity to seek\nexemption and without issuing a show-cause notice is not correct and\nis mechanical and violates natural ... filed his return of income had failed to pay the\namount of advance tax as required per the mandate of Section 249(4)(b)\nof the Act, declined to admit the appeal by treating the same as\ninfructuous. For the sake of clarity, the observations

VANDANA SINGH,NOIDA vs. ITO 5(2)(5) NOIDA, NOIDA

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

ITA 2816/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarvandana Singh, Ito, 5(2)(5), 302, Abhinav Apartments, Noida, U.P. Vasundhra Enclave V. Delhi-110096 Pan-Dcrps8979A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 69

before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee by treating the same as un-admitted by invoking provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act, as in view of ld. CIT(A) the assessee having not filed the return of income has also not deposited ... dismissing the first appeal of the assessee u/s 250 of the Act by treating the same as un-admitted under provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act because in view of ld. CIT(A) the advance tax was not paid by the assessee. It was submitted that

SHRI TARIQ AHMAD DAR,ANANTNAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, UDHAMPUR

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

ITA 422/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Mohd. Iqbal Untoo, C.A

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 210Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 69A

fact of non - filing of regular return , in response to notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, thereby attracting the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act. Brief facts emerging from records are that the assessee has deposited cash (SBN) 6. during demonetization period amounting

MEHAL SINGH,JHALLIAN KHURD,RUPNAGAR vs. ITO WARD-2(2), ROPAR, ROPAR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 806/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: The Cit(A), All The Notices & The Impugned Order Were Communicated At The Old Email Address Of The Earlier Counsel & Not At The Updated Email Address Furnished In The Income-Tax Records. Consequently, The Assessee Remained Unaware Of The Dismissal Of The Appeal & Came To Know About It Only When Recovery Proceedings Were Initiated. Immediately Thereafter He Consulted His Counsel & Steps Were Taken To File The Present Appeal. It Has Further Been Submitted That The Assessee Is A Senior Citizen Suffering From Hypertension & Diabetes & Due To Medical Complications

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 249Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)

appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) did not examine the additions on merits and dismissed the appeal in limine by invoking section 249(4)(b) on the ground that since no return of income had been filed, the assessee was required to pay an advance tax equivalent amount before filing ... dismissed on a technical ground without granting effective opportunity. It was contended that there was no admitted tax liability and therefore provisions of section 249(4) were wrongly invoked. 7.1 It was further submitted that the assessee never received the appellate order and came to know of it only through

MRS. PARNAL NISHANT MEHAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 42(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 8389/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Chetan JaiswalFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)

dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of the fact that the assessee has not paid advance tax in terms of section 249(4) of the Act. 6. Against the said order and findings of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. During the course

PARNAL NISHANT MEHAR,MAHARASHTRA vs. AO WARD 42(3)(1) , MUMBAI, KAUTILYA BHAWAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 8264/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Chetan JaiswalFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)

{"clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nMUMBAI “C” BENCH : MUMBAI\nBEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND

BALRAJ SINGH,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. ITO-I(5), SHAHJAHANPUR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 857/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 249(4)(b)Section 253(3)

present case, the (C) appeal was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) in limine, without going into the merits of the appeal, invoking section 249(4)(b) of I.T. Act. On perusal of the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A), it is obvious that there was no admitted ... perused. It is found that there was no admitted tax payable by the assessee for the year under consideration. Therefore, the provisions of section 249(4)(b) I.T. Act were not attracted. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) is directed to admit the appeal and adjudicate the same on merits

VIKRAM SINGH GROVER,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1 (1) CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

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

ITA 608/CHANDI/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Feb 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: The Cit(A) On 19.04.2023 Along With A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Explaining That The Intimation Remained Unnoticed & The Assessee Was Pursuing Rectification Proceedings U/S 154. The Learned Cit(A), However, Held That The Reasons Did Not Constitute

For Appellant: None (Adj. Application)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 249Section 249(3)Section 249(4)Section 250

Income-tax Act, including the prerequisite requirement of payment of taxes due on returned income / admitted tax liability as contemplated under section 249(4) before the appeal is admitted and heard. (iii) In case of non-compliance of the above conditions, the CIT(A) shall be at liberty to dismiss

M/S AMBAH CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY,MORENA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MORENA

In the result, both the revenue appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 584/AGR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra20 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 249(4)Section 250Section 271

exparte on the ground that the non-filer assessee had neither filed ITR nor paid the required advance tax in accordance with section 249(4) of the Act. As we have allowed ITA No. 583/Agr/2025 for statistical purposes, and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merit

M/S AMBAH CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY,MORENA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MORENA

In the result, both the revenue appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 583/AGR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra20 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 249(4)Section 250Section 271

REKHA KHANDELWAL,RAJGARH vs. ITO WARD RAJGARH, RAJGARH

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 649/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2014-15 Rekha Khandelwal, Income-Tax Officer, Ward No.2, Near Chote Ward Rajgarh Hanuman Mandir, बनाम/ Rajgarh Bus Stand Vs. S.O. Rajgarh, (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Eljpk1548B Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 253(5)Section 68

first- appeal. The CIT(A) treated assessee’s first-appeal as deficient on the footing of non-payment of tax as required by section 249(4)(b) and accordingly dismissed assessee’s appeal as non-admitted. Now, the assessee has come before us challenging the orders of lower-authorities ... additions of equal amount. In such a situation, the CIT(A) was not correct in observing that there was a non-compliance of section 249(4)(b) as held by ITAT, Indore in Shri Pushpendra Singh Chouhan Vs. ITO, ITA No. 122/Ind/2024, order dated 24.06.2024 as under: “7. We have

DHARMENDRA RIKHAVCHAND SHAH, HUF,HIMATNAGAR vs. NFAC, DELHI PRESENT HURIS.THE ITO, WARD-1, HIMATNAGAR

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

ITA 2680/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151A

circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal by invalidity invoking the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act without considering the fact that the appellant had filed original return of income. 2.1 In law and on the facts ... Appeals) did not go into the merits of the additions. The appeal was dismissed in limine by invoking the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act on the reasoning that the assessee had not filed a return of income in response to notice under section

PRASHANT JUGALKISHORE RATHI,AKOLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, AKOLA

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

ITA 29/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Prashant Jugalkishore Rathi Ito, Ward–3, Akola Laxmi Nagar Shrinath Apartment, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Murtizapur Gaurakshan Road, Road, Maharashtra – 444107. Maharashtra – 444004. [Pan: Aocpr1040K] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Mrs. Shikha Loya, Ca Revenue By Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit–Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.02.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh:

Section 144Section 249Section 249(4)(b)Section 250(6)Section 254(1)Section 41(1)

substantial ground of appeal tax relates to dismissal of appeal by ld CIT(A) for the want of admitted tax lability under section 249(4)(b) of Income Tax Act (Act). 2. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. At the outset of hearing ... taking view that the assessee has not deposited Prashant Jugalkishore Rathi payment of tax equal to amount of advance tax as per Section 249 (4)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee was not having

KATHIRVELU SUBBARAYAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-19(4), CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3854/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy.S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3854/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Mr. Subash Anbaraju.K, Advocate

Section 148Section 148ASection 249Section 249(4)Section 250

hands of the assessee. Aggrieved the assessee filed before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismiss the appeal by invoking the provisions of section 249(4) of the act stating that the assessee has not paid an amount equal to the amount of advance tax payable by him. The assessee ... dismiss the appeal stating that the assessee has not paid the advance tax and therefore the appeal is not maintainable under section 249(4) of the act. Before proceeding further we will look at the relevant provisions of the act which read as under – 249 - Form of appeal and limitation

DILIP VENGSARKAR FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEPMTION) 1(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 7791/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokardilip Vengsarkar Ito(Exemption)- Foundation 1(2), A-5, Sportsfield, 9A Khan Vs. Room No. 620, 6Th Abdul Gaffar Khan Road, Floor, Cumball Hill Worli Colony, Worli, Mtnl Telephone Mumbai-400 030 Exchange Building, Pedder Road, Dr. G. S. Marg, Mumbai-400 026 Pan/Gir No. Aaatd1346G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Nikhil Damle & Shri Himmat Rajput, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.02.2026

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

proof of payment of the prescribed appeal fee and, therefore, the appeal was held to be defective and not maintainable in view of section 249(4) of the Act. 10. Section 249(1) read with section 249(4) and Rules framed thereunder, mandates that an appeal shall be accompanied ... very date on which the appeal was instituted before the learned CIT(A). The challan receipt evidences compliance of the substantive requirement of section 249(4). 11. Thus, the defect noted by the learned CIT(A) was not non- payment of appeal fee, but non-furnishing of the challan evidencing

SHREE GAJANAN MAHILA GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1, SATARA

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

ITA 3161/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.3161/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Shree Gajanan Mahila Vs. Income Tax Officer, Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Ward-1, Satara Patsanstha Maryadit, A/P. Vahagaon, Tal. Karad, Satara 415110 Maharashtra Pan : Aahas3528D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Shahakar

Section 147Section 249(4)(b)Section 250(6)

Assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) but the same has been dismissed in limine for non deposit of advance tax as referred in section 249(4)(b) of the Act. We note that ld.CIT(A) in para 3.5 of the impugned order has referred to the word “Not applicable” mentioned

SARATHA,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 3, VIRUDHUNAGAR

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

ITA 3436/CHNY/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms.D. Geetha, CAFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 144Section 148Section 249(4)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

PANEERSELVAM SUBRAMANIAM,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-5(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 3068/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. Sanjay Aravind, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 249(4)Section 294(4)

BASHIR AHMAD RAH,REHPORA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SRINAGAR

The appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 176/ASR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar03 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Shri Udayan Dasguptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 175 & 176/Asr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2016-17 Bashir Ahmad Rah, The Ito, Khudwani Wanpoh, V Ward 1, Jammu & Kashmir S Srinagar 192331 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Cehpr7830E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Virtual Hearing Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Farhat Khan, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2026

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Farhat Khan, CIT DR

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 210Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

advance tax ( admitted tax ) coupled with the fact that no return has been filed for any of the years , triggering the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act , in absence of any application , praying for waiver or exemption of pre deposit. 6. The claim of the assessee ... such he prays for an opportunity to explain his case before the Ld first appellate authority both on the technical issue of section 249(4)(b) and also on merits. 8 The Ld DR relied on the order of the Ld CIT(A) and submitted that in absence

BASHIR AHMAD RAH,REHPORA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SRINAGAR

The appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 175/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar03 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Farhat Khan, CIT DR

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 210Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

Showing 1–20 of 422 · Page 1 of 22

...