“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)

Yadvendra Pratap Singh, U.S.Nagar vs. ITO, Rudrapur

In the result, the Appeal of the Appellant is partly allowed for

ITA 39/DDN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 39/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2017-18) Yaduvendra Pratap Chand Vs. Ito Matta Garg & Co. Chartered Ward -2 (1)(5), Bhagwada Accountants, 15, Astley Hall, Kichha Road Rudrapur, U. Dehradun-248001 S. Nagar, Uttarakhand, Pan: Aghpc5432F Dehradun Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. S. K. Mattal, Ca Revenue By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/07/2025

Section 144Section 249(4)

Assessee is having very good case on merit as the Assessee is not liable to pay any tax, therefore invocation of provision of Section 249(4) of the Act is erroneous. Thus, submitted that the addition made by the A.O. which has been erroneously sustained ... interference. Further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has also dismissed the Appeal as the Assessee has not complied with the provision of Section 249(4) of the Act as the Assessee has failed to pay the taxes equal to amount to advance tax which was payable by him. Therefore

Gurmelo Devi, Jagadhari vs. Income Tax Officer, Yumnanagar

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

ITA 1170/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

against her. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), which was dismissed on the ground of non-compliance with Section 249(4)(b) of the Act. It was noted that the assessee had neither filed her return nor paid the advance tax as determined ... limine. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), which was dismissed on the ground of non-compliance with Section 249(4)(b) of the Act. It was noted that the assessee had neither filed her return nor paid the advance tax as determined

Ramesh, Gawali Palasia, Mhow vs. ITO-5(1), Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 1/IND/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiramesh, Income Tax Officer- बनाम/ 387, Malwiya Mohalla, 5(1), Vs. Gawali Palasia, Indore Mhow, Indore

Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 249(4)Section 253Section 69A

erred in not admitting the appeal and treating the appeal as infructuous in light of the provisions of section 249(4) of the Act without properly appreciating the facts of the case even when there was no liability on the appellant to pay tax on his income 2. That ... advance tax liability on him. The “impugned order” is wrong, illegal and not proper and Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly invoked Section 249(4) of the Act. Per contra Ld. DR stated that the orders of both the authorities below

Aamna Altafhussain Shariff, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 16(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3112/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Ms. Aamna Altafhussain Ito Ward-16(1)(1), Sharif, Aayakar Bhavan, 101-102 Meghdot-B, M.K. Road, Opp. Joggers Park, Churchgate, Vs. Lokhandwala, Mumbai, Andheri (West) Maharashtra – 420 020 Mumbai Maharashtra – 400 053 Pan: Aorps6003G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 249(4)(b)Section 69C

mainly aggrieved 2 Ms. Aamna Altafhussain Sharif by dismissal of the order by the Ld. CIT (A) by applying the provision of section 249(4)(b) of the Act. 2. At the outset, it is observed that the appeal of the Assessee is delayed by 97 days. In the petition ... days. It has been stated that the Ld. CIT (A), without giving any notice that the appeal was not maintainable, has applied section 249(4)(b) of the Act. It has been further stated that the assessee was not aware of intricacies of income tax law or appellate proceedings

Adarsh Medical Hall, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-7(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 287/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.287/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Adarsh Medical Hall Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward-7(1) [Pan :Aagfa5186R] Hyderabad

For Appellant: Shri R.Mohan Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashutosh Pradhan, DR

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

appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings, the Ld.CIT(A) observed that the assessee failed to satisfy the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act, therefore, notices were issued on 20.12.2023 and 26.12.2023 to comply with relevant provisions of the Act. However, the assessee ... Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee in- 4 Adarsh Medical Hall limine in terms of section 249(4)(b) of the Act for non-payment of admitted tax or an amount equal to the amount of advance tax which was payable

Raman Kumar, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 62(2), Delhi

The appeal is allowed, for statistical purposes only

ITA 2020/DEL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Raman Kumar, Vs Ito, C9/175, Yamuna Vihar, Ward-62(2), New Delhi - 110 053. Delhi Pan: Aikpk1659F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Arzoo Rai, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

For Appellant: Ms Arzoo Rai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. DR

Section 249(4)(b)

hearing. 3. It comes up that the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal on the basis of non-compliance of conditions mentioned u/s section 249(4)(b) of the Act in a summary manner. However, it is a case of non-filing of the return by the assessee. The ld.CIT

Kdp Buildwell P.Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 524/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmam/S. Kdp Buildwell Pvt. Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, A-213, 1St Floor, Shanti Gopal Chamber, Ghaziabad. Vikas Marg, Shakarpur, Delhi – 110 092. (Pan :Aabcs6353E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suresh Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.04.2025 Date Of Order : 25.06.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Iv, Kanpur [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 23.03.2018 For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, A Search & Seizure Operation Under Section 132 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) Was Conducted On 26.09.2014 On The Premises Of The Assessee Comprising Kdp/Mgp Group Of Cases. Based On The Incriminating Material Found During The Search, A Notice

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 140ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 153C

case we notice that the CIT(A) has rejected the appeal by stating that the assessee’s case fall within the purview of section 249(4)(b) and the assessee has not complied with the requirement under the proviso to the said section. This in our considered view ... returned income to the tune of Rs.11,82,60,329 thereby admitting the tax liability on the same and therefore provisions of section 249(4) is attracted. 10. We notice that the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case M/s.Garden City Resorts Pvt., Ltd (supra) has considered a similar

Dhaval Mahendrakumar Patel, Mumbai vs. The ITO, Ward 42(1)(2), Mumbai.

In the result, the assessee succeeded on

ITA 1226/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Hybrid Hearing) Dhaval Mahrndrakumar Patel Ito, Ward-42(1)(2), Mumbai 117 Ba, Panchratna, Opera House, Vs Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai – 400004. Bandra Kurla Complex, [Pan No. Aoapp1829A] Mumbai,Maharashtra-400051 Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 254(1)Section 69

further submits that ld. CIT(A) dismissed his appeal on technical issue that no advance tax has been paid as per section 249(4). Section 249(4) speaks about tax on returned income; the assessing officer in 2 Dhaval Mahendrakumar Patel assessment order recorded that assessee filed return of income

Mohar Singh Gour, Bhopal vs. ITO NFAC, Delhi

Appeal is dismissed is non payment of advance

ITA 650/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore05 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 253

impugned order” has dismissed the first appeal of the assessee on the ground specified therein. The core reason being that by virtue of Section 249(4)(b) the assessee was required to pay an amount equal to the amount of advance tax as the same is not paid and hence

Mohar Singh Gour, Bhopal vs. ITO NFAC, Delhi

Appeal is dismissed is non payment of advance

ITA 649/IND/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Indore05 Jun 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 253

Cofre Do Fundo Da Cruz Alo De Bambolim, Bambolim vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 305/PAN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji04 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.305/Pan/2024 (A.Y. 2015-16 ) Cofre Do Fundo Da Cruz Alo Vs National E – De Bombolim, Assessment Centre, . 101/1,Holy Cross Shrine, Delhi-110001 Bambolim, Gmc Complex, . Bambolim-403202, Goa. Pan .No. Aabtc0675N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By Smt.Pratibha.R. Ar Revenue By Shri.Deshmukh S Prakashsr.Dr

Section 11Section 249(4)(b)

facts, findings of the AO and Form no 35 and find that the assessee has not paid the taxes and the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act are attracted and has issued deficiency letter and since there was no compliance by the assesse ... interested and find that as per Form no 35, the assessee has not paid the taxes/advance tax and the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act are attracted and the CIT(A) has issued the deficiency letter dated 05-01-2024 referred at Para3.5 of the order

Datia Vishvanath Trading Company, Sheetla Ganj Indergarh vs. Central Circle Gwalior, Main Building, Gwalior

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

ITA 171/AGR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(a)

assessee’s appeal on account of non-payment of self-tax, we find that the ld. CIT(A) invoked the provisions of section 249(4) of the Act which reads as under: “(4) No appeal under this Chapter shall be admitted unless at the time of filing of the appeal ... merits. This order is further followed in case of PCIT vs. Abdul Zahid [2017] 397 ITR 727 (Kar.). 5. The provision of section 249(4)(a) is directory provision failing which no penal consequence follows. However, in case of mandatory provisions, non-compliance exposes the assessee with penal provisions. Thus

Pradeep Singh Aswal, Madhya Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2) Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh

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

ITA 164/AGR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

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

dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine for want of payment of advance tax as per the provisions of Section 249(4)(b) of the Act. Against this order of ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before Tribunal. 4. So far as the non-maintainability of assessee ... account of non-payment of advance tax we find that the ld. CIT(A) Pradeep Singh Aswal vs. ITO invoked the provisions of section 249(4) of the Act which reads as under: “(4) No appeal under this Chapter shall be admitted unless at the time of filing

M/S. Madeena Constructions, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc-8)1), Chennai

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

ITA 3031/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anita, Addl. CIT

Section 249(4)(a)Section 250

payment of Rs.1.30 Crs. and therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in finding that the assessee was barred from filing the appeal under sub-section 249(4)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘) 4. The aforesaid assertion of the assessee needs verification. Having said

Chetan Ram, Bhitu Bhimji vs. Income Tax Officer, Barmer

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

ITA 74/JODH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 May 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) rejected the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has not paid the advance-tax or has not discharged the obligation for payment of disputed tax, thereby contravening the provisions of section 249(4)(a) of the Act. So, the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in an exparte order passed without considering the assessee's submission. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an

For Appellant: Shri Amit KothariFor Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl.CIT (Sr.DR.)

Section 144Section 144oSection 249(4)(a)Section 250Section 69A

assessee has not paid the advance-tax or has not discharged the obligation for payment of disputed tax, thereby contravening the provisions of section 249(4)(a) of the Act. So, the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in an exparte order passed without considering the assessee ... year under consideration. We find that the dismissal of the appeal by the Ld. CIT(A) on the grounds of non-compliance with section 249(4)(a) of the Act is not justified. However, the assessee was unable to substantiate the claim made before the Ld. CIT(A) in relation

Divey Dipti Chopra, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 11(1), Delhi

ITA 5443/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 249(4)(b)

next emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that the CIT(A)/NFAC has invoked section 249(4)(b) of the Act for rejecting the assessee’s lower appeal in limine for want of a payment of his admitted advance tax. 4

Divey Dipti Chopra, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-11(1), Delhi

ITA 5442/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 249(4)(b)

Laxmi Babu Debnath, Pune vs. ITO Ward 7(1), Pune

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

ITA 536/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.535 & 536/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Laxmi Babu Debnath, V The Income Tax Officer, Level 3, Riverside Business S Ward-7(1), Pune. Bay, Wellesley Road, Near Rto, Pune – 411001. Maharashtra. Pan: Acypd2630F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajiv Thakkar – Ar Revenue By Shri Madhan Thirmanpallil – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 14/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeal Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. These Two Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. We Treat Appeal In

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 249(4)Section 250Section 57

filed by the Assessee against the order u/s.148 of the Act, on the ground that Assessee has not paid the taxes. 2.2 The Section 249(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is reproduced here as under : 249. (1) ………….. (4) No appeal under this Chapter shall be admitted unless ... good and sufficient reason to be recorded in writing, exempt him from the operation of the provisions of that clause.” 2.3 Thus, Section 249(4) envisages two situations. In this case, ld.CIT(A) has stated that assessee has not filed Return of Income and not paid the taxes, therefore, invoked

Laxmi Babu Debnath, Pune vs. ITO Ward 7(1), Pune

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

ITA 535/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 May 2025AY 2012-13

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 249(4)Section 250Section 57

Sahyogh Nagri Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit, Jalna vs. ITO Ward-1, Jalna

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

ITA 36/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.36/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Sahyogh Nagri Sahkari Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Jalna. Patsanstha Maryadit, 17/85, Juna Monda Mahesh Nagar, Ambad, Dist. Jalna-431203. Pan : Abmfs8514J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prateek Jha Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 04.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.11.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Cooperative Credit Society & Has Not Furnished Its Return Of Income For The Period Under Consideration. On The Basis Of Information Available With The Department, It Was Noticed That The Assessee Has Deposited

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JhaFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

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

appeal of the assessee, without admitting the same for adjudication, on the sole ground of non-payment of advance tax in accordance with section 249(4)(b) of the IT Act. In this regard, we are of the considered opinion that the advance tax if any payable as per section ... case. It was the observation of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC that the assessee was required to deposit advance tax in the light of section 249(4)(b) of the IT Act & when 4 the assessee was issued show cause to explain this point he did not chose to file