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)

Ocean Marine Environment Coatings Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, TDS, Ward - 2(2), Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 296/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 200A(1)Section 234ESection 249(2)

Ocean Marine Environment Coatings Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, TDS, Ward - 2(2), Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 295/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 200A(1)Section 234ESection 249(2)

Shree Swamy Samarth Prassana Oshiwara (E) Units Chs Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 25(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 237/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shree Swamy Samarth, Ito-25(1)(3), Prassana Oshiwara (E) Unit C-10, Room No. 404, 4Th 3 Chs Ltd. Vs. Floor, Pratyakshakar Oshiwara (E) Unit 3 Chs Bhavan, Bkc, Ltd., Plot No. 1/41, Deep Mumbai-400051. Tower, New Link Road, Near Millat Nagar, Andheri (West) Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aacas 7886 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Tarun Ghia Revenue By : Mr. A.N. Bhalekar, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 10/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 22/05/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Tarun GhiaFor Respondent: Mr. A.N. Bhalekar, CIT-DR
Section 144Section 148

Swastic Oil Industries, Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle-7, Jaipur

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

ITA 33/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehara (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(2)Section 249(2)Section 271(1)(c)

Sardar Singh Rathore, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(5), Jaipur

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

ITA 47/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 144Section 148Section 249(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

Brij Bihari Dubey Educational Trust, Gorakhpur vs. The Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Lucknow

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 45/VNS/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi24 Feb 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2014-15 Brij Bihari Dubey Educational Trust, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner C-251, Budh Vihar, Taramandal, Of Income Tax-Cpc, Gorakhpur-273001, Uttar Pradesh Bangalore Pan-Aabtb7657D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Subhash Chand, Adv & Sh. Ashutosh Bhardwaj, Adv Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.02.2023 O R D E R

For Appellant: Sh. Subhash Chand, Adv & ShFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

Rishabh Mining Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-21(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 3051/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 249(2)

Rishabh Mining Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-21(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 3050/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 249(2)

Rishabh Mining Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-21(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 3049/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 249(2)

Rishabh Mining Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-21(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 3048/DEL/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 249(2)

Bhagat Parkash Kamal Sharma, Jammu vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1 (1), Jammu

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

ITA 184/ASR/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 127Section 127(2)Section 144Section 249(2)Section 250Section 68

Rakesh Kumar Agrawal, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-46(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 932/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2023AY 2014-15
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 249

Abhishek Mahesh Palvia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Offier 35(1) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 83/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Purnesh Gururani
Section 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 250Section 68

Mohd Arif Hamidulla Khan, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-38, Mumbai

The appeal of the appellant is dismissed

ITA 1895/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Ahuja, D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 234Section 271(1)(c)

Manish Kumudchandra Metha, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-19(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2407/MUM/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2022AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.2407/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Manish Kumudchandra Mehta बिधम/ Vs. Acit, Circle-19(2) 7, Sudha, 2Nd Floor, Patel Compound, 14, Hanvant Bhavan, 80E, Sea Road, Napeansea Road, Mumbai-400006. Mumbai-400036. आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.2409/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Manish Kumudchandra Mehta बिधम/ Vs. Income Tax Officer- 19(2)(3) 7, Sudha, 2Nd Floor, Patel Compound, Matru Mandir, 2Nd Floor, Sea Road, Grant Road, Mumbai-400036. Mumbai- 400007. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadpm9184G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar. Cit) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/11/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dated 27-07-2022 For A.Y. 2011-12 & Ay. 2013-14. 2. None Appeared For The Assessee. However, Having Perused The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee, We Note That The Main Grievance Of The Assessee In

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 249(2)

Vikram Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-50(1), New Delhi

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1732/DEL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari R. Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 249(2)

ACIT, Central Circle -1(3), Chennai vs. Shri Samiappa Gounder Duraisamy, Chennai

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

ITA 175/CHNY/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri S.Sridhar & Shri N.Arjun RajFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT
Section 143CSection 153CSection 249(2)Section 249(3)

Shri Sa Duraisamy, Chennai vs. ACIT, CC1(3), Chennai

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

ITA 175/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri S.Sridhar & Shri N.Arjun RajFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT
Section 143CSection 153CSection 249(2)Section 249(3)

Dewsoft Overseas Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT Spl Range-3, New Delhi

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6489/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2022AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 249(2)

Sun Combine, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-1, Coimbatore

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

ITA 173/CHNY/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri A. Arjun Raj, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT
Section 153ASection 271Section 271A