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)

Om Betwa Bhandar Grah, Jalaun vs. ITO Ward 2(1)(5), Income Tax Officer

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 269/AGR/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra21 Jul 2026AY 2020-21
Section 147Section 246ASection 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250

Amit Agarwal, Bengaluru vs. ITO, Ward-4(3)(1), Bangalore, Koramangala

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

ITA 952/BANG/2026[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sri. Srinivas. K.T, Advocate
Section 119(2)(b)Section 154

Dharamvir Kumar, Bangalore vs. ITO, Ward 3(1)(1), Bangalore

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 1142/BANG/2026[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sri. Mahendra Jain, CA
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148ASection 249(2)

Darodi Utkarsh Sahakari Pathpedi Ltd, Shivaji Nagar, Govandi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 27(1)(1), Vashi

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

ITA 8319/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: AAAAD6764F
Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 249(2)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

Rajendra Singh, Uttar Pradesh vs. ITO, Uttar Pradesh

In the result, both the Assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8144/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jul 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Shantanu Kanungo, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Rajendra Singh, Uttar Pradesh vs. ITO, Uttar Pradesh

In the result, both the Assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8143/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jul 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Shantanu Kanungo, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Friday Entertainment Ventures Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT-16(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2667/MUM/2026[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri N.K. Lal, CA (Virtually Present)For Respondent: 01/07/2026
Section 144Section 147Section 249(2)Section 249(3)

Ranveer Singh Raghuwanshi, Guna vs. CIT (Appeal), Delhi

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals viz ITA No

ITA 387/AGR/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra09 Jul 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: : Sunil Kumar Singhbrajesh Kumar Singh

Section 147Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250

Ranveer Singh Raghuwanshi, Guna vs. CIT (Appeal), Delhi

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals viz ITA No

ITA 386/AGR/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra09 Jul 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: : Sunil Kumar Singhbrajesh Kumar Singh

Section 147Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250

Coopretive Marketing Society Limited, Kasganj Etah vs. Ward 4(3)(3), Kasganj Etah

In the result, ITA No. 378/Agr/2026 is dismissed and ITA No

ITA 383/AGR/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 Jul 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: : Sunil Kumar Singhbrajesh Kumar Singh

Section 144BSection 147Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 250(6)

Coopretive Marketing Society Limited, Kasaganj vs. Ward 4(3)(3), Kasganj, Etah

In the result, ITA No. 378/Agr/2026 is dismissed and ITA No

ITA 378/AGR/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 Jul 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: : Sunil Kumar Singhbrajesh Kumar Singh

Section 144BSection 147Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 250(6)

Khilan Navinchandra Patel, Surat vs. DCIT Circle 1(3), Surat

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 794/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Jul 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Him. Further, There Is A Delay Of 331 Days In Filing Appeal Before This Tribunal. The Assessee Filed A Notarized Affidavit That In Form No.35, He Has Opted Not To Send Email Notices. The Assessee Also Explained The Delay In Filing Appeal Before Ld. Addl./Jcit(A).

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 90

Trend East West Lpg Bottling Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle 15, New Delhi

In the result, the impugned order dated 18

ITA 378/DEL/2026[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2026AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhasstt. Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Shubham Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. G.P. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Steel Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the Rule 27 application filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6838/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: The Learned Cit(A).

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

Ar Foundation, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

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

ITA 2281/CHNY/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jun 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Honourable Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2280 & 2281/Chny/2026 ननिाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2018-19 A.R. Foundations, V. The Income Tax Officer, No.148 Acropolis Building, Ground Floor, Non-Corp Ward-1(2), Dr. Radhakrishnan Road, Mylapore, Chennai. Chennai-600 004. [Pan: Aasfa0033B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. S. Girish Kumar, Advocate, Ld. Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr. Chilaka Marthi Vijay Raju, Addl. Cit, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.06.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Gagan Goyal, Am: These Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) / Nfac, (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’) Dated 27.03.2026, For The Assessment Year (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ay’) 2018- 19. Grounds Of Appeal

For Appellant: Mr. S. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Chilaka Marthi Vijay Raju
Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 40

Ar Foundation, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

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

ITA 2280/CHNY/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jun 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Honourable Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2280 & 2281/Chny/2026 ननिाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2018-19 A.R. Foundations, V. The Income Tax Officer, No.148 Acropolis Building, Ground Floor, Non-Corp Ward-1(2), Dr. Radhakrishnan Road, Mylapore, Chennai. Chennai-600 004. [Pan: Aasfa0033B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. S. Girish Kumar, Advocate, Ld. Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr. Chilaka Marthi Vijay Raju, Addl. Cit, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.06.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Gagan Goyal, Am: These Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) / Nfac, (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’) Dated 27.03.2026, For The Assessment Year (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ay’) 2018- 19. Grounds Of Appeal

For Appellant: Mr. S. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Chilaka Marthi Vijay Raju
Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 40

S V Distilleries Private Limited, Malchapur, Bidar vs. Dc/ACIT Circle 6(1)(1), Blr, Bangalore

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

ITA 1940/BANG/2025[AY 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2026

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: CA. K. Abhiroop Bhargav, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian, JCIT-D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 5Section 68

Sanjay Nayar, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-19(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3370/MUM/2026[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarsanjay Omprakash Acit Circle -19(3) Nayar Piramal Chambers, 10, Floor 5, 17C, Vs. Mumbai-400 012 Rushilla Chs M L Dhanukar Marg, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai-400 026 Pan/Gir No. Acmpn4670P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri N. A. Patade, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shree Kumar C., Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.06.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 29.06.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am: The Present Appeal Arise Out Of The Order Dated 27.01.2026 Passed By The Learned Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Cit(A)"] Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"] For Assessment Year 2021-22. The Impugned Appellate Order Emanates From The Intimation

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 249(2)Section 250Section 80

Rp Grow Venture Private Limited, Gwalior vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 343/AGR/2026[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Jun 2026AY 2023-2024

Bench: : Sunil Kumar Singhbrajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2023-24 Rp Grow Venture Pvt Ltd, Vs. Acit Circle, 1(1), Gwalior Behind Keshaw Prakashan Sp Mp. Ashram, Gwalior-474012 Pan :Aalcr7040M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Vivek Jain & Shri Rakesh Agarwal, Ca. Department By Dr. Sangeeta Yadav, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 24.06.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.06.2026 Order Per:Sunil Kumar Singh

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

Dilip Sharma, Morena vs. Income Tax Officer 1(1), Gwalior

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals viz ITA Nos

ITA 357/AGR/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Jun 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: : Sunil Kumar Singh & Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 271A