Section 249(2) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.358

Section 249(2) falls under section 249 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 358 (Form of appeal and limitation) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 358 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 249(2) is Vaijayantabai Baburao Patil v. Shantaram Baburao Patil (122 Taxmann 114), cited in 63 of the 636 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 249(2)

Vaijayantabai Baburao Patil v. Shantaram Baburao Patil
122 Taxmann 114 · 2002 · Supreme Court
63
citing judgments
Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom, Perinadu Village v. Bhargavi Amma (Dead) by LRs
8 SCC 321 · 2008 · Reported
31
citing judgments

The phrase 'sufficient cause for not making the application within the period of limitation' is to be understood and applied liberally. The burden of proving 'sufficient cause' rests on the appellant.

Surinder Kumar Boveja v. CWT
287 ITR 52 · 2006 · High Court
20
citing judgments

The court cannot condone prolonged delays in filing appeals if the assessee has not demonstrated due diligence. Delay in filing appeals, particularly those related to penalties under sections 272A(1)(d) and 270A, cannot be routinely excused.

Ornate Traders (P.) Ltd. v. ITO
312 ITR 193 · 2008 · High Court
17
citing judgments

The expression 'sufficient cause' for condoning delay in filing an appeal is to be judged with reference to reasonableness and the conduct expected of a litigant acting with ordinary prudence, falling within the realm of normal human conduct.

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Kauji
66 STC 228 · 1987 · Supreme Court
16
citing judgments

Courts should adopt a liberal approach when considering applications for condonation of delay in filing appeals. Refusing to condone delay can lead to a meritorious case being dismissed on technical grounds, thereby defeating the cause of justice.

EBR v. UOI
89 Taxmann.com 194 · 2018 · High Court
11
citing judgments

The High Court condones delay in filing an appeal when substantial justice is preferred over technical considerations, and there is no presumption of intentional delay by the litigant.

Rarefield Engineers (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of 13. Income-tax
156 Taxmann.com 643 · 2023 · High Court
7
citing judgments
Rajendrakumar Maneklal Shah (HUF) v. CIT
213 ITR 715 · 1995 · Reported
5
citing judgments
Rekha Krishnaraj v. ITO
85 Taxmann.com 256 · 2017 · Supreme Court
5
citing judgments
Improvement Trust v. Ujagar Singh
45 DTR 377 · 2010 · High Court
4
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 249(2)

Akash Jain, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 32(3), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2248/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.2248/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Akash Jain………………………………..……………………….....Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocate Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Aoipj6380C] Vs. Ito, Ward-32(3), Kolkata……….……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanjay Paul, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 22, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 23, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.10.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Care Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Did Not File Any Return Of Income U/S 139(1) Of The Act For The Assessment Year 2017-18. An Information Was Received That The Assessee Had Deposited An Amount Of Rs.89,50,000/- In His Bank Account During Demonetization Period. Thereafter, The Case Of Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Act By Issuing Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Requesting Thereon To File Return. In Response To Notice U/S 148 Of The Act, The Assessee Submitted Return Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,37,850/-. Subsequently, Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(2)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A