What is the leading case on Section 249(2) of the Income Tax Act?

Vaijayantabai Baburao Patil v. Shantaram Baburao Patil (122 Taxmann 114) is the decision most relied on for Section 249(2), cited in 63 judgments.

Which cases are most cited on Section 249(2)?

Vaijayantabai Baburao Patil v. Shantaram Baburao Patil (122 Taxmann 114) — 63 citing judgments; Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom, Perinadu Village v. Bhargavi Amma (Dead) by LRs (8 SCC 321) — 31 citing judgments; Surinder Kumar Boveja v. CWT (287 ITR 52) — 20 citing judgments; Ornate Traders (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (312 ITR 193) — 17 citing judgments; Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Kauji (66 STC 228) — 16 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 249(2)?

BharatTax indexes 636 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 249(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

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

citing judgments

Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom, Perinadu Village v. Bhargavi Amma (Dead) by LRs

8 SCC 321 · 2008 · Reported

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

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

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

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

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

citing judgments

Rajendrakumar Maneklal Shah (HUF) v. CIT

213 ITR 715 · 1995 · Reported

citing judgments

Rekha Krishnaraj v. ITO

85 Taxmann.com 256 · 2017 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Improvement Trust v. Ujagar Singh

45 DTR 377 · 2010 · High Court

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 249(2)

Cantt Board, Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer

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

ITA 660/JPR/2017[2014-15 (F.Y. 2013-14 FORM 24Q-Q3 )]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2017

For Appellant: WRITTEN SUBMISSIONSFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Mallik (Addl.CIT)

Section 249(2)Section 282Section 282(2)Section 5Section 66A

M/S Somu Properties Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-1, Kolkata

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

ITA 709/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Apr 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Him With Ita No. 709/Kol/14 M/S. Somu Properties Pvt. Ltd 1

Section 249(2)

Allahabad Bank, Naktala Branch, Kolkata vs. JCIT, TDS RG.57, Kolkata

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

ITA 1384/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Mar 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1384/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Allahabad Bank, Vs. Jcit(Tds), Range-57, 10B, Middleton Row, 8Th Floor, Naktala Branch, 364/23A, Nsc Bose Road, Kolkata-700071 Kolkata-700040 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Cala 06329 B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Tapas Dutta, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Md. Ghayas Uddin, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 23/02/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 22/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-2011, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xvi, Kolkata, In Appeal No.138/Cit(A)-Xvi/Jcit,R-57/13-14/Kol, Dated 28.02.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Jt.Commissoner Of Income Tax-Tds (Ao),U/S.272A(2)(K)/274 Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 08.12.2011. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Quarterly Tds Returns Late Therefore The Assessing Officer (Tds) Imposed Penalty On The Assessee U/S 272A(2)(K) Of The Act At Rs.50,336/- 3. The Captioned Appeal Is Time Barred By 32 Days. The Assessee Filed Petition For Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Said Appeal. The Assessee Explained The Reasons For Delay Stating That Assessee Is A Schedule Bank

For Appellant: Shri Tapas Dutta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT

Section 1Section 206ASection 249Section 272Section 272A(2)(k)

Sri Debasish Roy Chowdhury, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T.-Circle-52, Kolkata

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

ITA 2279/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2279/Kol/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2007-2008) Sri Debasish Roy Chowdhury, Vs. Acit, Circle-52, Kolkata 46E/1, New Ballygunge Road, 2, Gariahat Road(South), Kolkata-39 Kolkata-68 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Adipr 7212 A .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Mrs. Saswati Mitra(Dutta), Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, Jcit,Srdr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 07/03/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 07/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Mrs. Saswati Mitra(Dutta), AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT,SRDR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 249(2)

Manish Baxi, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

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

ITA 4088/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotraassessment Year : 2007-08 Manish Baxi, Ito, Ward- 3, D-4/7, Ground Floor, Gurgaon. Dlf Exclusive Floors, Vs. Dlf City Phase- 5, Gurgaon. Pan : Aerpb 8961 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri S. K. Jain, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 249(2)

Sh. Jagmeet Singh Brar, New Delhi vs. ITO, Gurgaon

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

ITA 1303/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Diva Singh

Section 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 250

Vividh Margi Investment P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 9(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2006-07

ITA 7429/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainvividh Margi Investment Pvt. Ltd. 7, Udyog Nagar, Unit 102, S.V.Road, Goregaon (West), Mumbai 400 104 Pan:Aaacv0141N ... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay KothariFor Respondent: Shri Dipak Kumar Sinha

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 249(2)Section 274

Shri. Vijaya Babu T.R, Bangalore vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1373/BANG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia, Accounant Member

For Appellant: Smt. J. Tejavathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Naresh Saka JCIT

Section 144Section 249Section 271

M/S Daqisy Investment Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 390/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Sept 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. Daisy Investment Pvt. Ltd, The Dcit, Modi Bhawan, Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad Circle-1, Vs. Pan:Aabcd1827E Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. RK Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Sh. KK Jaiswal, DR

Section 2(22)(e)Section 236(3)Section 249(2)