Section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.358

Section 249(3) 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(3) is Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (7 SCC 123), cited in 368 of the 1,376 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 249(3)

Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy
7 SCC 123 · 1998 · Supreme Court
368
citing judgments

The Supreme Court outlines the principles for condoning delay in filing appeals, stating that a litigant's lapse is not always a bar if the explanation is bona fide and not a dilatory strategy. Courts should show utmost consideration to suitors and prioritize substantial justice unless the delay is deliberately to gain time.

Sreenivas Charitable Trust v. Dy. CIT
280 ITR 357 · 2006 · High Court
182
citing judgments

The expression "sufficient cause" for condoning delay in filing appeals must receive a liberal and purposive construction. This approach aims to advance substantial justice, which is of paramount importance.

Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat
4 SCC 363 · 1992 · Supreme Court
117
citing judgments

The law declared by a judgment is the principle derived from reading the judgment as a whole in light of the questions it addresses. Lower authorities are bound by the orders of higher authorities due to judicial discipline.

Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer
14 SCC 81 · 2013 · Supreme Court
65
citing judgments

Sufficient cause for condoning delay means an adequate and non-blameworthy reason that prevented a party from acting within the prescribed time, requiring an explanation that would satisfy a cautious person. It is not an elastic concept covering long, negligent, or stale claims.

Vaijayantabai Baburao Patil v. Shantaram Baburao Patil
122 Taxmann 114 · 2002 · Supreme Court
63
citing judgments
P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala
7 SCC 556 · 1997 · Reported
59
citing judgments

The law of limitation must be applied with all its rigour, and courts cannot extend the period of limitation on mere equitable considerations or for casual explanations without sufficient cause. Parties must demonstrate diligence and a bona fide reason for the delay.

Improvement Trust, Ludhiana v. Ujagar Singh
6 SCC 786 · 2010 · Supreme Court
57
citing judgments

Delay in filing appeals should be condoned if it is not deliberate or mala fide, as courts must adopt a pragmatic approach to advance substantial justice and allow matters to be contested on merits rather than dismissing them on technicalities.

Prashant Projects Ltd. v. DCIT
37 Taxmann.com 137 · 2013 · Reported
53
citing judgments

The ITAT held that while a liberal approach may be adopted for condoning delay in filing appeals, this does not permit filing appeals disregarding statutory time limits. Gross negligence, deliberate inaction, or lack of bona fide on the part of the assessee can be grounds for dismissing an appeal filed after the prescribed period.

CIT v. Ram Mohan Kabra
257 ITR 773 · 2002 · High Court
52
citing judgments

Statutory provisions prescribing limitation periods must be applied strictly. Delay in filing an appeal can only be condoned for sufficient, bona fide, and well-substantiated cause, requiring due diligence from the appellant, and not merely on vague or general grounds.

Madhuri Goud v. B. Damodar Reddy
12 SCC 693 · 2012 · Reported
47
citing judgments

When considering an application for condonation of delay, courts must adopt a liberal, pragmatic, and justice-oriented approach, understanding 'sufficient cause' in its proper spirit to serve the ends of justice and avoid legalizing injustice.

Judgments on Section 249(3)

Cube Infrastructure Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO Ward-9(3), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 746/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.746/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Cube Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. ……..……………………....Appellant 425, Dum Dum Park, Kolkata, W.B. – 700055. [Pan: Aadcc3318D] Vs. Ito, Ward-9(3), Kolkata…. ….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rajat Datta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 03, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 04, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 09.02.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal Addl/Jcit(A)-9, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Time Of Hearing, No One Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee, Although Notices Were Served On Time To Time From The Registry To The Assessee Through Post On 22.08.24, 3.12.2024. As All Options Have Gone In Vain Since No One Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee On The Consecutive Dates, Under Such Situation, We Cannot Keep This Appeal Pending For Inordinate Delay For Adjudication. We, Therefore, Feel It Necessary To Decide This Appeal On The Basis Of Material Available On Record & With The Assistance Of The Ld. Dr.

Section 249(3)Section 250