Section 249(4) — 422 case laws

Madhukar Ganpat Dhakwal, Mangaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5, New Panvel

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2434/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kant Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.2434 & 2418/Pun/2025 धििाारण वषा /Assessment Year: 2018-19 Madhukar Ganpat Ito, Ward 8(5), Dhakwal, Raigad 1/B At Tilore Post Vs. Vighawali Tal Mangaon, Wighawali B.O Tilore, Raigarh Maharashtra Pan-Bfopd7627G अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By: Ca Hiral D. Sejpal & Ankita P. Gorde Department By: Smt. Sonal L Sonkavde, Addl-Cit Date Of Hearing: 03-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 16-03-2026 आदेश/Order Per Shri Vinay Bhamore: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Same Order Dated 25.08.2025 Passed By Ld. [Cit(A)] Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Respondent: Smt. Sonal L Sonkavde

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 50C

order the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT appeal. Since the assessee has not paid any advance tax as contemplated under section 249(4)(b) of the IT act learned CIT appeal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without admitting the same for adjudication ... observing as under:- 5. Against the said order the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT (A), however, the Ld. CIT(A) invoked section 249(4)(b) of the Act holding that appeal of the assessee is not admitted because the assessee has not paid the taxes or advance

Madhukar Ganpat Dhakwal, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 8(5), Raigad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2418/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kant Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.2434 & 2418/Pun/2025 धििाारण वषा /Assessment Year: 2018-19 Madhukar Ganpat Ito, Ward 8(5), Dhakwal, Raigad 1/B At Tilore Post Vs. Vighawali Tal Mangaon, Wighawali B.O Tilore, Raigarh Maharashtra Pan-Bfopd7627G अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By: Ca Hiral D. Sejpal & Ankita P. Gorde Department By: Smt. Sonal L Sonkavde, Addl-Cit Date Of Hearing: 03-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 16-03-2026 आदेश/Order Per Shri Vinay Bhamore: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Same Order Dated 25.08.2025 Passed By Ld. [Cit(A)] Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Respondent: Smt. Sonal L Sonkavde

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 50C

order the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT appeal. Since the assessee has not paid any advance tax as contemplated under section 249(4)(b) of the IT act learned CIT appeal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without admitting the same for adjudication ... observing as under:- 5. Against the said order the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT (A), however, the Ld. CIT(A) invoked section 249(4)(b) of the Act holding that appeal of the assessee is not admitted because the assessee has not paid the taxes or advance

Shri Imtiyaz Ahmad Beigh, Sri Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Srinagar

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 277/ASR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Bashir Ahmad Lone (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR

Section 144Section 249(4)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, AMRITSAR VIRTUAL HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

Narottambhai Chhotubhai Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(1), Surat

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

ITA 1185/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Surat30 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

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

raised following grounds of appeal:- “1) The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the basis of Section 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act, on the ground that the assessee had not paid any advance tax, without duly considering the facts stated ... appeal in limine holding that since the assessee had not filed return of income and had not paid advance tax as required under section 249(4)(b) of the Act, the appeal was not maintainable. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee

Hemendra Kumar Menaria, Udaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Udaipur

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 769/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

Section 249(4)(b)Section 271A(1)

subject year, the first appellate authority could not have held that he had failed to comply with the statutory conditions contemplated in section 249(4)(b). Meaning thereby that the order of the NFAC is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is restored to the file

Hemendra Kumar Menaria, Udaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Udaipur

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 768/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

Section 249(4)(b)Section 271A(1)

subject year, the first appellate authority could not have held that he had failed to comply with the statutory conditions contemplated in section 249(4)(b). Meaning thereby that the order of the NFAC is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is restored to the file

Hemendra Kumar Menaria, Udaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Udaipur

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 767/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

Section 249(4)(b)Section 271A(1)

subject year, the first appellate authority could not have held that he had failed to comply with the statutory conditions contemplated in section 249(4)(b). Meaning thereby that the order of the NFAC is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is restored to the file

Hemendra Kumar Menaria, Udaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Udaipur

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 766/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

Section 249(4)(b)Section 271A(1)

subject year, the first appellate authority could not have held that he had failed to comply with the statutory conditions contemplated in section 249(4)(b). Meaning thereby that the order of the NFAC is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is restored to the file

Shei Rajiv Nagari Patasavnstha Marya Hitani, Gadhinglaj vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Kolhapur, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1727/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Indira R. Adakil

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 68Section 80P(2)(a)

appeal, the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee by applying the provisions of section 249(4) of the Act as the 3 ITA No.1727/PUN/2025, AY 2019-20 assessee has not paid the tax due on income declared in its return of income by observing as under

Jashvantiben Girishbhai Patel, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(2), Surat

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

ITA 274/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Surat22 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 147Section 234ASection 249(4)Section 250Section 250(6)

r.w.s 144. 2. That the Ld. NFAC has erred in rejecting the appeal filed vide form 35 by invoking the provisions of section 249(4) without appreciating that the stipulation as to the payment of tax before filing of first appeal is only directory and not mandatory. 3. That ... dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine, without adjudicating the grounds raised on merits and without correctly appreciating the applicability of section 249(4) of the Act. Considering the fact that the appeal was disposed of without examination of the issues on merits, and keeping in view the principles

Roshan Ali, Proprietor M/S Sagar Dairy vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3)(5), Income Tax Department

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 125/DDN/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Roshan Ali, Proprietor Vs. Income Tax Officer, M/S. Sagar Dairy, Ward-1(3)(5), Dargah Pahari Gate Near Roorkee Pani Ki Tanki, Piran Kaliyar, Roorkee, Uttarakhand Pan :Bsepa8697Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr

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

with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that the learned CIT(A) has refused to admit the assessee’s appeal under section 249(4)(b) for non-payment of advance tax than having adjudicated on merits under section 250(6) of the Act, requiring him to frame points

Rakesh Kumar, Barabanki vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(5), Barabanki

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 438/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Rakesh Kumar V. The Income Tax Officer Naka Paisar Ward 5(5) Deen Dayal Nagar Barabanki Barabanki (U.P) Tan/Pan:Awkpk2247F (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.12.2023, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Deposited Rs.11,40,000/- During The Demonetization Period, I.E., From 09.11.2016 To 30.12.2016 In His Bank Account No.752530110000014 Maintained With Bank Of India, Subeha Bazar, Haidergarh. Thereafter, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Issued Statutory Notices To The Assessee, Requiring The Assessee To Explain The Source Of Cash Deposits In His Bank Account. Since There Was No Compliance From The Side Of The

For Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 144Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 68

erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal ex-parte for reasons of non-compliance of the provisions of section 249(4) of the Act, in as much as, the tax payable on the income returned having not been ITA No.438/LKW/2025 Page 4 of 11 deposited, such ... preceding years there was no liability cast on the assessee to file the return of income hence, there being no default under section 249(4)(b) of the Act, the order passed by the CIT(A) is bad in law, be set aside. 03. Because the CIT(A) has erred

Rajat Kumar Gupta, Ramanujganj, Balrampur vs. Income Tax Officer-1, Ambikapur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 737/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 736 & 737/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Rajat Kumar Gupta, V Income Tax Officer-1, Near Power House Road, S Kharsiya Marg, Tatapani, Ramanujganj, S.O., Near Ambika Petrol Pump, Surguja- 497220, C.G. Ambikapur-497335, C.G. Pan: Bpfpg5887N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) . . िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 05.01.2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: Since Facts, Grounds & Issues Involved Therein Are Common & Identical; Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together For Adjudication By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69Section 69A

Rs.1,94,743/-. The assessee has not furnished any evidence that this tax was paid by the assessee. As per provisions of section 249(4) the appeal is not admissible if the assessee has not paid the tax due on the income returned by him or where no return ... made payment of taxes due as per the return of Income. Hence, the case of the assessee is covered by the provisions of section 249(4)(a) of the Income Tax Act. The appeal is therefore not admissible. Without prejudice to the above, if it is considered that the return

Rajat Kumar Gupta, Surguja, Ambikapur vs. Income Tax Officer-1, Ambikapur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 736/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 736 & 737/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Rajat Kumar Gupta, V Income Tax Officer-1, Near Power House Road, S Kharsiya Marg, Tatapani, Ramanujganj, S.O., Near Ambika Petrol Pump, Surguja- 497220, C.G. Ambikapur-497335, C.G. Pan: Bpfpg5887N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) . . िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 05.01.2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: Since Facts, Grounds & Issues Involved Therein Are Common & Identical; Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together For Adjudication By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69Section 69A

Rs.1,94,743/-. The assessee has not furnished any evidence that this tax was paid by the assessee. As per provisions of section 249(4) the appeal is not admissible if the assessee has not paid the tax due on the income returned by him or where no return ... made payment of taxes due as per the return of Income. Hence, the case of the assessee is covered by the provisions of section 249(4)(a) of the Income Tax Act. The appeal is therefore not admissible. Without prejudice to the above, if it is considered that the return

Apmc Tarikere, Tarikere vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chickmagalur

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

ITA 1442/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri C.R. Vasanth Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R

Section 10Section 10(1)Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(7)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

regarding return filed for the assessment year in connection with which appeal is filed and whether an amount of advance tax as per section 249(4)(b) of the Act was paid and accordingly did not admit the appeal for adjudication on merit. 5. Again, aggrieved by the order ... Mysore. Further, assessee has also claimed exemption u/s 10(26AAB) of the Act being agricultural produce market committee and therefore, the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act will not be applicable to the assessee. 8.1 Further we are of the considered opinion that Section 249(4

Gurpreet Singh Pannu, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 435/ASR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, C. AFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. D. R

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 69Section 69A

case, Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal as not admitted in view of section 249(4)(b) of the Act without considering the submission of the assessee and facts of the case. (b) That having regard to the facts and circumstances ... after discussing the issue on merits , he was not legally justified to dismiss the appeal for alleged violation of the provisions of section 249(4)(b), more so when the admitted tax of Rs. 10.72 lakhs on LTCG, has already been paid in course of first appeal

Govabhai Lakhabhai Rabari, Anjar vs. Income Tax Officer(ITO), Gandhidham

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

ITA 878/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Kalepesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234ASection 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 274Section 44A

without giving proper opportunity of being heard. 3. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly dismissed the appeal by applying provision of section 249(4)(b) of the I.T. Act. 4. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed addition of Rs. 12,41,000/- on account of unexplained money

Govabhai Lakhabhai Rabari, Anjar vs. Income Tax Officer(ITO), Gandhidham

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

ITA 877/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Kalepesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234ASection 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 274Section 44A

without giving proper opportunity of being heard. 3. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly dismissed the appeal by applying provision of section 249(4)(b) of the I.T. Act. 4. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed addition of Rs. 12,41,000/- on account of unexplained money

Mr. Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2519/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2513, 2514, 2515, 2516, 2517, 2518 & 2519/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 Shri Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, The Deputy Commissioner No.42, Maraikayar Street-Ii Floor, Vs. Of Income Tax, Near Annai Ayesha Mahal, Central Circle – 1(4), Chennai – 600 001. Chennai. Pan: Aawpi 0038G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca & Shri Shrenik Chordia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 139Section 208Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

assessee has primarily raised two grounds namely ground Nos.2 & 3. Ground No.2 relates to whether the CIT(A) has erred in invoking section 249(4)(b) of the Act and dismissing the appeals in limine by holding that advance tax liability is to be based on the assessed income instead ... adjudicated by the CIT(A)]. 4. Firstly, the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee by invoking the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act. The relevant finding of the CIT(A) in the assessment year 2015-16 dismissing the appeals in limine read as follows

Mr. Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2518/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2513, 2514, 2515, 2516, 2517, 2518 & 2519/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 Shri Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, The Deputy Commissioner No.42, Maraikayar Street-Ii Floor, Vs. Of Income Tax, Near Annai Ayesha Mahal, Central Circle – 1(4), Chennai – 600 001. Chennai. Pan: Aawpi 0038G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca & Shri Shrenik Chordia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 139Section 208Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

assessee has primarily raised two grounds namely ground Nos.2 & 3. Ground No.2 relates to whether the CIT(A) has erred in invoking section 249(4)(b) of the Act and dismissing the appeals in limine by holding that advance tax liability is to be based on the assessed income instead ... adjudicated by the CIT(A)]. 4. Firstly, the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee by invoking the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act. The relevant finding of the CIT(A) in the assessment year 2015-16 dismissing the appeals in limine read as follows

“Section 249(4)”

Leading authorities on Section 249(4)

Judgments citing Section 249(4)

Madhukar Ganpat Dhakwal, Mangaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5, New Panvel

Madhukar Ganpat Dhakwal, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 8(5), Raigad

Shri Imtiyaz Ahmad Beigh, Sri Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Srinagar

Narottambhai Chhotubhai Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(1), Surat

Hemendra Kumar Menaria, Udaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Udaipur

Hemendra Kumar Menaria, Udaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Udaipur

Hemendra Kumar Menaria, Udaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Udaipur

Hemendra Kumar Menaria, Udaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Udaipur

Shei Rajiv Nagari Patasavnstha Marya Hitani, Gadhinglaj vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Kolhapur, Kolhapur

Jashvantiben Girishbhai Patel, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(2), Surat

Roshan Ali, Proprietor M/S Sagar Dairy vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3)(5), Income Tax Department

Rakesh Kumar, Barabanki vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(5), Barabanki

Rajat Kumar Gupta, Ramanujganj, Balrampur vs. Income Tax Officer-1, Ambikapur

Rajat Kumar Gupta, Surguja, Ambikapur vs. Income Tax Officer-1, Ambikapur

Apmc Tarikere, Tarikere vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chickmagalur

Gurpreet Singh Pannu, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer, Jalandhar

Govabhai Lakhabhai Rabari, Anjar vs. Income Tax Officer(ITO), Gandhidham

Govabhai Lakhabhai Rabari, Anjar vs. Income Tax Officer(ITO), Gandhidham

Mr. Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

Mr. Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai