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)

Meenaben Sureshbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2(2)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 155/AHD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Goyal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 271(1)(c)

Chandrasekaran Satish, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw - 8 (4), Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for

ITA 2147/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. Saroj Kumar parida, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 249(2)

Athiyur Natesan Radhakrishnan, Chennai vs. DCIT Central Circle 2(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1503/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1503/Chny/2019 धनिाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2009-10 V. Shri Athiyur Natesan Radhakrishnan The Deputy Commissioner Of 931, 69Th Street,11Th Sector, Income-Tax, K K Nagar, Chennai-600078 Central Circle-2(1) Investigation Wing, Room No. 122 1St Floor, New No. 46, M.G.Road Chennai-600034. [Pan: Aacpr5498M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

For Respondent: Mr.A.Sunderarajan, Addl.CIT
Section 249(2)Section 271(1)(c)

Kishore Nanwani, Puducherry vs. ITO Ward I(1), Puducherry

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

ITA 955/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr.D.V.Subba Rao, JCITFor Respondent: 22.10.2019
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 253(3)

Salim Valimohamand Meman, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-6(1)(5), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2326/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Hon’Ble Vice- & Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Varis V. Isani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr.DR
Section 249Section 249(2)Section 253Section 3Section 5

Ara Law, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 16(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4012/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4012/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15) बिाम/ M/S. Ara Law Acit 16(2) The Capital Mumbai 1001-C, V. B Wing, Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaafa5712H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri. Satishchandra Rajore (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 01.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.07.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 4012/Mum/2018, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 28.03.2018 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”) In Appeal No. Cit(A)-5/It-267/Acit-16(2)/2016-17, For Assessment Year(Ay) 2014-15, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 19.12.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2014-15. I.T.A. No.4012/Mum/2018

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Satishchandra Rajore (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 249(1)Section 249(2)

Shri Bishan Lal, Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2-3, Ajmer

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

ITA 1287/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: The Ld.Cit(A), Which Was Delayed By 30 Days. Before The Ld. Cit(A) The Assessee Explained The Reasons For Delay, However, The Ld. Cit(A) Did Not Appeal Within The Period Specified U/S. 249(2) Of The Act. It Was Contended By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Is A Villager. Befroe The Income

For Appellant: Shri Satish Sibnani, CA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Smt. Roshanta Meena, JCIT, ld.DR
Section 139(9)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 249(2)Section 44A

Umesh A Mishra, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1936/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1936/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14) बिाम/ Mr. Umesh A Mishra Ito 10(3)(3), B/401/402, 2Nd Floor, Raheja Sherwood, Aayakar Bhavan, V. Behind Hub Mall Mumbai-400020 Western Express Highway Goregaon, East, Mumbai-400063 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aagpm0190F (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Ms. Neha Paranjape Revenue By: Shri. D.G. Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 19.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 1936/Mum/2018, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 29.12.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-17/It-54/16-17, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2013-14, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 22.02.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2013-14. I.T.A. No.1936/Mum/2018

For Appellant: Ms. Neha ParanjapeFor Respondent: Shri. D.G. Pansari (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(C)

Shri Deepak Enterprises, Kishangarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC (TDS), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 1159/JPR/2018[2013-14 (26Q, 4TH QUARTER)]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Nov 2018

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri O.P. Bhateja (ITP)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (JCIT)
Section 200ASection 234ESection 249(2)

Shree Ganpati Traders, Kishangarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC (TDS), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 1158/JPR/2018[2013-14 (26q-2nd quarter)]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Nov 2018

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri O.P. Bhateja (ITP)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (JCIT)
Section 2Section 200ASection 234E

M/S Jitendra Sizing Factory, Kishangarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC (TDS), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 1157/JPR/2018[2014-15 (26 Q, 3RD QUARTER)]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Nov 2018

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri O.P. Bhateja (ITP)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (DCIT)
Section 200ASection 234E

M/S Jitendra Sizing Factory, Kishangarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC (TDS), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 1156/JPR/2018[2014-15 (26Q, 2ND QUARTER)]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Nov 2018

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri O.P. Bhateja (ITP)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (DCIT)
Section 200ASection 234E

M/S Jitendra Sizing Factory, Kishangarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC (TDS), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 1155/JPR/2018[2014-15 (26 Q-1ST QUARTER)]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Nov 2018

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri O.P. Bhateja (ITP)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (DCIT)
Section 200ASection 234E

Ramarpan Education Society, Bhilwara vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption, Ajmer

In the result, appeal ITA No

ITA 862/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Sept 2018AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Rahul Parmanandani (CA)For Respondent: Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT)
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 154

Bombay Mercantile Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 2153/MUM/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2153/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri. D.G Pansari
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 80P

Athashri Foundation, Mumbai vs. Asst DIT (E) -II(2), Mumbai

Appeal stand allowed

ITA 6590/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.6590/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12) Athashri Foundation Assistant Director Of Income Tax 101, Somnath, Cts No.988 [Exemption]-Ii(2) बनाम/ Ram Mandir Road, Piramal Chamber Vs. Vile Parle (E) Lalbaug Mumbai-400 057 Mumbai "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aaata-8602-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Revenueby : Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Ld.Dr Assessee By : Yogesh Thar & Hardik Nirmal, Ld.Ar’S सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 02/07/2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 11/07/2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Yogesh Thar & Hardik NirmalFor Respondent: Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Ld.DR
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 25

Assistant Engineer (O&M) Avvnl, Shrimadhopur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, (TDS), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 409/JPR/2018[2016-17 (24Q, 2ND QTR.)]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 May 2018
For Appellant: Shri Ankur Salgia (CA)For Respondent: Shri Prithvi Raj Meena (Addl.CIT)
Section 1Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234Section 234E

Assistant Engineer (O&M) Avvnl, Shrimadhopur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, (TDS), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 405/JPR/2018[2016-17 24Q1]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 May 2018
For Appellant: Shri Ankur Salgia (CA)For Respondent: Shri Prithvi Raj Meena (Addl.CIT)
Section 1Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234Section 234E

Assistant Engineer, Avvnl, Shrimadhopur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, (TDS), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 361/JPR/2018[2014-15 (24 - Q-1)]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 May 2018
For Appellant: Shri Ankur Salgia (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena (Addl.CIT)
Section 1Section 200A(1)Section 234E

Assistant Engineer, Avvnl, Shrimadhopur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, (TDS), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 359/JPR/2018[2013-14-24Q-2]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 May 2018
For Appellant: Shri Ankur Salgia (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena (Addl.CIT)
Section 1Section 200A(1)Section 234E