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)

Shree Shyam Enterprises, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle-7, Jaipur

In the result, as delay in filing of appeal is not condoned, the appeal is not admitted and is rejected accordingly

ITA 231/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)

Sharwan Lal Dudhawal, Sikar vs. ITO Ward Neemkathana Bor AO CPC, Neemkathana

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

ITA 549/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.549/Jpr/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sharwan Lal Dudhawal, The Income Tax Dudhwalon Ki Dhani Vpo V Officer, Ajeetgarh, S Ward-Neemkathana Sikar/Neemkathana, Meen- Bor Ao Cpc, Ka-Thana, Rajasthan-332701. Neemkathana. Pan: Ajypd8361Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta – Advocate (Ar) Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Meena – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04/07/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Orders Of Ld.Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax/Jcit(Appeals)-5, Shrawan Lal Dudhwal [A]

Section 143(1)Section 234Section 249(3)Section 250Section 44A

Nayan Prajapati, Govind Colony vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(4) Indore, Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 165/IND/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Nayan Prajapati, Income-Tax Officer, 469, Govind Colony, Ward 4(4), बनाम/ Malwa Bharti School, Indore. Vs. Indore. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan : Airpp7549J Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27.06.2024

Section 144Section 156Section 248Section 249(2)

Paresh Vanilal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward 29(2)(5)/ Now 41(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1614/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI BR BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250

Sujata Singh, Faridabad vs. ITO, Faridabad

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

ITA 1303/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: The Ld.

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 249(3)

Neethivanan Jeyasudha, Chennai vs. Addl JCIT (A), Jodhpur

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

ITA 449/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.449/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Neethivanan Jeyasudha, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, New No.P3, Old No.P13, Non Corporate Ward 19(4) 19Th Street, Anna Nagar, Chennai. Chennai 600 040. [Pan: Aplpj5195D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Varadarajan, Cma ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. R. Mukundan, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. Varadarajan, CMAFor Respondent: Shri. R. Mukundan, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250

Anil Jain, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

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

ITA 1192/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year 2011-12

For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr.DR
Section 144Section 147Section 249(2)Section 249(3)

Bijender Singh, Alipurduar vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Alipurduar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 447/KOL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 445 To 447/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20, 2021-22 & 2022-23 Bijender Singh Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Vs Alipurduar Advocates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700069 [Pan : Dsnps3610C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/05/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl/Jcit(A)-10, Mumbai (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 20 Days In Filing Of These Appeals. There Is A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein, The Reasons For The Delay. On Perusal Of The Petition, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented For Reasonable Cause From Filing This Appeal In Prescribed Time Limit. Accordingly, We

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 249(2)Section 250Section 90

Bijender Singh, Alipurduar vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Alipurduar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 446/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 445 To 447/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20, 2021-22 & 2022-23 Bijender Singh Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Vs Alipurduar Advocates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700069 [Pan : Dsnps3610C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/05/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl/Jcit(A)-10, Mumbai (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 20 Days In Filing Of These Appeals. There Is A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein, The Reasons For The Delay. On Perusal Of The Petition, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented For Reasonable Cause From Filing This Appeal In Prescribed Time Limit. Accordingly, We

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 249(2)Section 250Section 90

Bijender Singh, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Alipurduar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 445/KOL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 445 To 447/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20, 2021-22 & 2022-23 Bijender Singh Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Vs Alipurduar Advocates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700069 [Pan : Dsnps3610C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/05/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl/Jcit(A)-10, Mumbai (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 20 Days In Filing Of These Appeals. There Is A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein, The Reasons For The Delay. On Perusal Of The Petition, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented For Reasonable Cause From Filing This Appeal In Prescribed Time Limit. Accordingly, We

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 249(2)Section 250Section 90

Sheetal Nilesh Sonawane, Kalwa vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 49/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi - CAFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh A Chourasia – CIT DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 249Section 249(3)Section 250

Pathapathi Vijayakumar, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 356/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vilas V Shinde, CIT (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 249(2)

Acegaro Bioscience Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-12(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2012-

ITA 598/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms Kinjal BhutaFor Respondent: Shri Sunny Kachhwaha
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 249(2)Section 250

Acegaro Bioscience Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-12(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2012-

ITA 597/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms Kinjal BhutaFor Respondent: Shri Sunny Kachhwaha
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 249(2)Section 250

Shivananda Patil, Kolkata vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 32/KOL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jun 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 30 To 32/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 To 2022-23 Shivananda Patil Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Vs Advocates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700069 [Pan : Beipp9978P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Probhash Roy, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2020-21 To 2022-23. 2. As The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Identical, For The Sake Of Convenience They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 3. The Common Issue Involved In These Appeals That Arises For Our Adjudication Is In Respect Of Denial Of Relief Claimed U/S 90 Of The Act On Account Of Delay In Furnishing Of Form 67 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Probhash Roy, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 249(2)Section 250Section 90

Shivananda Pati, Jalpaiguri vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 31/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 30 To 32/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 To 2022-23 Shivananda Patil Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Vs Advocates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700069 [Pan : Beipp9978P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Probhash Roy, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2020-21 To 2022-23. 2. As The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Identical, For The Sake Of Convenience They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 3. The Common Issue Involved In These Appeals That Arises For Our Adjudication Is In Respect Of Denial Of Relief Claimed U/S 90 Of The Act On Account Of Delay In Furnishing Of Form 67 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Probhash Roy, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 249(2)Section 250Section 90

Shivananda Patil, Jalpaiguri vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 30/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 30 To 32/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 To 2022-23 Shivananda Patil Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Vs Advocates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700069 [Pan : Beipp9978P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Probhash Roy, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2020-21 To 2022-23. 2. As The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Identical, For The Sake Of Convenience They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 3. The Common Issue Involved In These Appeals That Arises For Our Adjudication Is In Respect Of Denial Of Relief Claimed U/S 90 Of The Act On Account Of Delay In Furnishing Of Form 67 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Probhash Roy, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 249(2)Section 250Section 90

Sri Sai Balaji Transport, Kakinada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kakinada

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

ITA 108/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.108/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Sri Sai Balaji Transport Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.41-2-22/8, Koppula Street Ward-1 Budampet Kakinada Kakinada [Pan : Acrfs3673C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 249(3)Section 3Section 5

Mudhiyor Balarkudumba Grama Pannai, Vellore vs. Exemptions Ward 1, Chennai

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

ITA 592/CHNY/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.592/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Abhishek, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S. Easwar, IRS, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 51

Avijit Mondal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-52(1), Kolkata.

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

ITA 1345/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 147Section 249Section 250