“Section 249(4)”

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

The decision most relied on for Section 249(4) is Pr. CIT v. Golden Peace Hotels and Resorts (P) Ltd. (124 Taxmann.com 249), cited in 105 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 249(4)

Pr. CIT v. Golden Peace Hotels and Resorts (P) Ltd.

124 Taxmann.com 249 · 2021 · Supreme Court

105

citing judgments

A penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) is not sustainable if the notice issued under Section 274 fails to specifically mention whether the charge relates to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessing Officer must specify the exact charge for the penalty to be valid.

Trust (249 ITR 533) (Bom.) 3. CIT vs. Red Rose School (163 Taxman 19 (All.) 4. DIT(E) v. Alarippu (

172 ITR 698 · 1988 · High Court

citing judgments

Income received by a trust from sources like extra fees can be taxed at the maximum marginal rate, while other income remains eligible for exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act.

11th June, 1996. 4. In Trustees of H.E.H. the Nizam’s Supplemental Family Trust v. CIT

242 ITR 381 · 2000 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act cannot be initiated unless the assessment proceedings based on a previously filed return have been terminated. Notice for reassessment cannot be issued while original assessment proceedings are pending.

ITO v. Seth Bros. (SC)

74 ITR 836 · 1969 · Reported

citing judgments

Evidence collected during an illegal search can still be used against the assessee. An assessment made based on such evidence is valid.

CIT v. Ashoka Engineering Co.

194 ITR 645 · 1992 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

The right of appeal is conferred by statute and should be interpreted liberally and practically. Whether a right to appeal is available should be guided by the form, not the substance, of the order.

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).

Komalakshi v. Dy. CIT

292 ITR 99 · 2007 · High Court

citing judgments

Admission of an appeal before the CIT(A) is subject to the mandatory condition of payment of tax due on the income returned by the assessee.

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)

Moatta Naicker Gopalakrishna Swamy, Chennai vs. ITO, Ward 3, Vellore

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

ITA 1148/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri N.V Narayanan, Advocate for Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT

Section 139Section 148Section 249Section 249(4)

admitted the appeal on the ground that assessee has not paid advance tax before filling the appeal as per section 249(4) of the Act. However it is seen that there is no advance tax payable as per Form- 35 and there is nothing on record that assessee has admitted

Chakrapani Danam, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-22(6), Tambaram

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

ITA 1125/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri SP Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT

Section 139Section 148Section 249Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)

Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 23.02.2024. :- 2 -: 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal by observing as under: “2.8. As per section 249(4)(b) of the Act. the appeal shall not be admitted, unless the appellant has paid an amount equal to the amount of advance ... which was payable. Moreover, the appellant has also not made an application as per the Proviso to Section 249(4). As the applicable advance tax has not been paid by the appellant before filing of the present appeal and the appellant has not made application as per the proviso

Vasu Kumar Vaddi, Machilipatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Machilipatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee (ITA No

ITA 21/VIZ/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon‟Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon‟Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.20 & 21/Viz/2024 (धनधाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vasu Kumar Vaddi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 16/372-16-1, Ward-1, Valandapalem, Industrial Estate Machilipatnam. Road, Machilipatnam – 521002, Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Aifpv 6289 F (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri K. Siva Ram Kumar, Ar प्रत्याथीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनिाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04/06/2024 घोर्णाकीतारीख/Date Of : 25/06/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Pers. Balakrishnan:

For Appellant: Sri K. Siva Ram Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144B(1)(xi)Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 249(4)(b)Section 271Section 69A

NFAC found that the assessee has not filed any return of income and has also not paid 4 any advance tax as per section 249(4)(b) of the Act wherein the assessee has mentioned in Form-35, Sl. No. 9 “Not Applicable”. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, vide ... facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal for non- observance of section 249(4)(b) by the appellant since the appellant has disputed the entire tax levied in the 5 assessment and there was no undisputed tax liable to be paid

Vasu Kumar Vaddi, Machilipatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Machilipatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee (ITA No

ITA 20/VIZ/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Sri K. Siva Ram Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144B(1)(xi)Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 249(4)(b)Section 271Section 69A

Pushpendra Singh Chouhan, Sehore vs. ITO-Sehore, Sehore

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

ITA 122/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Pushpendra Singh Ito Chouhan, Sehore C/O Adv.Hitesh Chimnani, Ug-37 Trade Centre, Vs. 18 South Tukoganj, Near Hotel Crown Palace, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Cggps1953Q Assessee By Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Ms. Komal Wadhwani & Komal Kataria, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.06.2024 O R D E R

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal based on the provision of Section 249(4) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the assessee had duly filled his return of income u/s 139(1) and there was no advance ... however, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed on the ground that he has not paid the tax as per the provisions of Section 249(4)(b) of the Act. Thus CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine as the same was not admitted. 4. Before

Bhalagam Naidu Raja, Vellore vs. Iti Ward 3, Vellore

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

ITA 872/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 872/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Bhalagam Naidu Raja, The Income Tax Officer, 2/26, Melachakattu, Vs. Ward 3, Kalampathu Latheri, Vellore. Katpadi, Vellore – 632 202. Pan: Anppr 0224B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1060261821 (1) Dated 30.01.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Vellore For The Assessment Year 2017-18 U/S.144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 14.11.2019. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noticed That The Assessee Has Raised The Ground That The Cit(A)-Nfac Has Violated The Principles Of Natural Justice In Not Allowing Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Assessee & Passing Ex-Parte Order Without Going Into The Merits Of The Case. The Relevant Grounds Raised By The Assessee I.E., Ground Nos. 2 To 4 As Under:- “2. The Nfac Erred In Not Considering The Grounds Set Forth Before The Office Of Commissioner Of Income Tax & Passed An Order U/S.250 Which Violates The Principles Of Natural Justice.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 68

NFAC dismissed the appeal of assessee by observing that the assessee has not paid the taxes in term of section 249(4)(b) of the Act. But at the time of hearing, it is noted that the assessee as per the processing of return u/s.143 ... This processing u/s.143(1) of the Act is dated 14.11.2019. Once the assessee has paid the taxes on returned income, the provisions of section 249(4) of the Act do not bar an assessee from filing of appeal. We noted that the CIT(A)-NFAC has totally erred

Krishnasamy Maruthupandian, Virudhunagar vs. ITO, Corp Ward 4, Madurai

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

ITA 863/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 863/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Krishnasamy The Income Tax Officer, Maruthupandian, Vs. Corporate Ward-4, D No.2/6/1531 Asari Colony, Madurai. 4Th Street, Satchiyapuram, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar – 626 124. Pan: Agzpm 0804B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri G. Akash, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1058168632 (1) Dated 23.11.2023. The Assessment Was Framed By The Addl./Joint/Deputy/Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2013-14 U/S.147 R.W.S.144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 19.03.2022. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Nfac Confirming The Action Of Ao In Adding The Credits In The Bank Account Amounting To Rs.7,72,83,031/- As Unexplained Money U/S.69A Of The Act By Holding That The Assessee’S Appeal Is Dismissed As Un-Admitted & Infructuous For The Reason That The Assessee Has Not Paid An Amount Equal To The Amount Of Advance Tax In Term Of Section 249(4)(B) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri G. Akash, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

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

infructuous for the reason that the assessee has not paid an amount equal to the amount of advance tax in term of section 249(4)(b) of the Act. 3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee has not filed his return of income and accordingly, notice u/s.148 r.w.s ... that the assessee has not paid an amount equal to the amount of advance tax which was payable by him in term of section 249(4)(b) of the Act. The CIT(A)-NFAC observed as under:- “4. Since the appellant has not filed return of income as well

Philomena Paul Fernandesv, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessement Centre (ITO Ward 22(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 1604/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year :2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri H.M.Bhatt

Section 139Section 147Section 156Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)

reopening the assessment of 2 Assessment Year : 2017-18 the year under consideration. He submitted that the conditions prescribed in the provisions of section 249(4) of the Act shall apply to original return of income required to be filed u/s. 139 of the Act and the same will ... record. The undisputed fact is that the assessment under consideration relates to reassessment proceedings. The question as to whether the conditions prescribed in section 249(4) of the Act with regard to the payment of taxes for admitting appeals filed before CIT(A) was examined by the Co-ordinate Bench

Kurla Moonrock Chs, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 4301/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailkurla Moonrock Chs Vs. Ito 14(2)(2) 823 New Hall Road Room No. 453 Kurla West, Aaykar Bhavan. Mumbai- 400070 M.K. Road Maharashtra – 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaeck2430P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Sameer G. Dalal Respondent By : P. D. Chougule Date Of Hearing 25.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.06.2024

For Appellant: Sameer G. DalalFor Respondent: P. D. Chougule

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249Section 249(4)Section 50

National Faceless Appeal Center, Delhi ['the NFAC'] erred in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant in limine as not having been admitted under section 249 (4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act"). 1.2 While doing so, the NFAC erred in not granting adequate, proper and effective opportunity ... heard to the Appellant. 1.3 It is submitted that, in the fact and circumstances of the case, and in law, the provisions of section 249(4) of the Act were not applicable in Appellant's case WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE: P a g e | 2 Kurla Moonrock

Pardeep Shah, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer, New Delhi

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

ITA 1222/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year 2012-13

For Respondent: Sh. Om Parkash, Sr.DR

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

however declined to admit the appeal of the assessee on the ground that advance tax payable under Section 249(4)(b) of the Act has not been paid by the assessee. The CIT(A) has thus dismissed the appeal in limine without adjudicating the case on merits ... liable to tax and therefore, there was no advance tax liability arising in the hands of the assessee. Consequently, the embargo placed under Section 249(4)(b) is not applicable at the first place. The ld. counsel thus urged for restoration of appeal to the file

Sri Keshamul Agarwal, East Sikkim vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Gangtok

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

ITA 219/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 219/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Sri Kesharmul Agarwal,…………. …..………..Appellant C/O. M/S. Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, C.R. Avenue, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700072 [Pan:Atopa1445Q] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………….…Respondent Ward-3(1), Gangtok, Aayakar Bhawan, Bhanupath, While Hall Campus, P.O. Rajbaheri, Gangtok-737101, Sikkim Appearances By: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, Fca Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri B.K. Singh, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 18, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 19, 2024 O R D E R

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

Appeals) on the ground that the assessee failed to make payment of advance tax, which was payable by him and, therefore, as per section 249(4), clause (b), his appeal is not maintainable. The finding recorded by the ld. CIT(Appeals) in this connection reads as under:- “2.2. The appellant ... safely inferred that, the appellant does not have anything to say with respect to non-compliance of the provisions of section 249(4). 2.3. In this regard, provisions of Section 249(4) of the Act, is reproduced here under: [(4) No appeal under this chapter shall be admitted unless

Mohd Iliyas, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-55(5), Delhi

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

ITA 1212/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year 2011-12

For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr.DR

Section 144Section 249(4)

cash deposits out of sale proceeds of vehicles on behalf of the bank. The ld. counsel further pointed out that impediment of Section 249(4) invoked by the CIT(A) is not applicable in the instant case since the assessee has already filed the return of income declaring total income

Sh. Naresh Kumar, Alwar vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Alwar

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

ITA 329/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

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

amount of advance tax which was payable by it, the appeal is not liable to be admitted by incorrectly interpreting the provision of Section 249(4)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961’ 2.1 Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has not filed the return of income ... assessee, the AO made addition u/s 69A of the Act. 2.2 On appeal, the ld CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by referring to Section 249 (4) treating it as infructuous. 2.3 At the outset, the ld. AR while relying upon his written submitted that no proper opportunity was granted

Osia Jewels Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 3(4)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 1546/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year :2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri H.M.Bhatt

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

assessee made proper representation before the learned CIT(A). Accordingly, we are of the view that the issue of compliance of provisions of section 249(4) of the Act may be examined by learned CIT(A) afresh after affording adequate opportunity of being head to the assessee. If the appeal

Rakesh Jagannath Guta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 12(5), Pune

ITA 797/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.797/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

Section 249(4)(b)Section 294(4)(b)

dated 10.06.2024 in mentioning the section. In Para Nos.3 and 7 of the order, section 294(4)(b) was mentioned inadvertently instead of section 249(4)(b). Therefore, the same may be read as section 249(4)(b). (S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे

Citispeed Courier Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 14(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1254/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Citispeed Courier Pvt. Ltd. G-75, Mahindra Park, Lbs Marg, Narayan Nagar, Ghatkopar West, Mumbai – 400 086 Pan: Aaecc1788J ..... Appellant Vs. Ito 14(1)(1) Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri H. M. Bhatt, Ld. DR

Section 139Section 249(4)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Bezawada Narayanamurthy, Tirupathi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1), Tirupathi

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

ITA 358/HYD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.358/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Bezawada Vs. Income Tax Officer Narayanamurthy Ward 1(1) Tirupathi Tirupati Pan:Aespn6071N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 11/06/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)

dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground that the appeal filed by the assessee is not maintainable as per section 249(4)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for non-payment of admitted taxes. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee ... that the learned CIT (A) is erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee by not admitting the appeal in terms of section 249(4)(b) Page 2 of 5 ITA No 358 of 2024 Bezawada Narayanamurthy of the I.T. Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that when

Dilip Hiralal Chaudhari, Nandurbar vs. ITO, Ward, Dhule

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

ITA 642/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi

Section 142(1)Section 249(4)(b)Section 44A

balance income of Rs.1127698 assessed by the A.O. was disputed by the assessee in appeal and hence, the provisions of section of section 249(4)(b) cannot be interpreted in a manner to compel the appellant to pay advance tax on the entire disputed income before filing appeal merely because ... appellant had not filed a valid ITR for A.Y.2017 - 18. 3] The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the provisions of section 249(4)(b) mandate that the (advance) tax liability on the undisputed income must be deposited prior to filing appeal and the interpretation as sought

Swasthik Financiers, Kodagu vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Madikeri

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

ITA 752/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R

Section 115BSection 234ASection 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 68

principles of natural justice. 3. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in stating that the provisions of section 249(4) of the Act are applicable to the facts in the present case; 4. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts ... below taxable limit and there was no tax liability. However, the NFAC has dismissed the appeal of assessee by applying the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act as the assessee has not paid the tax on the admitted income. Further, he submitted that the ld. AO made

Visveswaraya Resham Khadi Industrial Association, Chikkaballapura vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Chikaballapura

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

ITA 361/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Visveswaraya Resham Khadi Industrial Association, Near Eswara Temple, The Income Tax Jangamakote Town, Officer, Post: Jangamakote Ward – 4(1), Shidlaghatta (Tq), Chikaballapur. Vs. Chikkaballapura Dist., Karnataka – 562 144. Pan: Aabav2671C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H. Guruswamy, Itp : Shri Narendra Kumar Naik, Revenue By Addl. Cit –Dr Date Of Hearing : 29-04-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2024 Order Per Beena Pillaithe Present Appeal Arises Out Of Order Dated 02/02/2024, Passed By Nfac, Delhi For Assessment Year 2018-19 Is On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITP

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

payable. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the assessee has not filed an application as per proviso to Section 249(4) seeking exemption from 5. operation of section 249(4)(b) without 1,27,39,161/- appreciating the fact that the question of filing the application ... Ld.AO the assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by invoking the provisions of section 249(4) of the Act. The relevant finding of the CIT(A) reads as follows: “3. Decision: As per the provisions of the section 249(4