Section 249(4)(a) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.358

Section 249(4)(a) 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(4)(a) is IPCA v. Gajanand Meena (329 ITR 249), cited in 16 of the 84 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 249(4)(a)

IPCA v. Gajanand Meena
329 ITR 249 · 2010 · High Court
16
citing judgments

Reopening an assessment beyond four years from the relevant assessment year is invalid if the reasons provided do not contain a finding that the assessee failed to make a full and true disclosure of all necessary facts. The condition precedent for exercising the power to reopen an assessment after four years is absent in such cases.

T.Govindappa Setty v. ITO
231 ITR 892 · 1998 · High Court
10
citing judgments

An appeal filed by an assessee cannot be rejected solely for non-payment of tax on the income shown in the return if the entire tax liability is disputed.

CIT v. Manoj Kumar Beriwal
316 ITR 218 · 2009 · High Court
10
citing judgments

For the purpose of Section 249(4) of the Income Tax Act, 'tax' does not include 'interest'. An appeal filed before the CIT(A) that has paid the admitted tax liability, excluding interest, can be considered valid.

Commissioner of Income Tax-III v. K. Satish Kumar Singh
209 Taxmann 502 · 2012 · Reported
3
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 249(4)(a)

Madhusudan Pala, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle- 9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 1741/HYD/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2026AY 2009-10
Section 132Section 153CSection 249(4)(a)

Madhusudan Pala, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle 9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 1739/HYD/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2026AY 2007-08
Section 132Section 153CSection 249(4)(a)

Shaheed Bhagat Singh Education Society, Mumbai vs. ITO (Exemption) Ward 2(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3827/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

Section 143(1)Section 249(4)(a)

Murtuza Hasanali Netterwala, Mumbai vs. Incom Tax Officer, CPC, Bengaluru

ITA 6341/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm& Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Assessee by
Section 143(1)Section 249Section 249(4)(a)Section 250(4)Section 276C

Swaminath Baburao Patil, Solapur vs. ITO Ward 2(3) Solapur, Solapur

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

ITA 832/PUN/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Nov 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.832/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Swaminath Baburao Patil, V The Income Tax Officer, C37, Siddheshwar Market S Ward-2(3), Solapur. Yard, Hyderabad Road, Solapur – 431005. Maharashtra. Pan: Akwpp4321P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Girish Ladda Revenue By Shri Ambarnath Khule (Through Virtual Hearing) – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2014-15 Dated 27.01.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Act, Dated 19.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 153CSection 249(4)(a)Section 250Section 292B

Creative Realmart Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(5), Jaipur

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

ITA 457/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Filing Of Appeal In Form-35 & Appellant Has Not Done Any Non-Compliance As Per Section 249(4)(B) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Kedawat, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT (DR)
Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 249(4)(a)Section 249(4)(b)

Sdc Construction, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD 1(3), Jiapur

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

ITA 347/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Mathur, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR a
Section 144BSection 147Section 249(4)(a)Section 68

Dhurba Saikia, North Lakhimpur vs. ITO, Ward North Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur

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

ITA 74/GTY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati30 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Agarwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray, DR
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 156Section 208Section 234B(1)Section 249Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 270A

Dhurba Saikia, North Lakhimpur vs. ITO, Ward North Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur

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

ITA 73/GTY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati30 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Agarwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray, DR
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 156Section 208Section 234B(1)Section 249Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 270A

Dhurba Saikia, Sonapur Bo vs. ITO, Ward North Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur

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

ITA 71/GTY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Agarwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray, DR
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 156Section 208Section 234B(1)Section 249Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 270A

Dhurba Saikia, Sonapur Bo vs. ITO, Ward North Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur

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

ITA 70/GTY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Agarwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray, DR
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 156Section 208Section 234B(1)Section 249Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 270A

Srirang Shamrao Deshmukh, Mumbai vs. Ward 41(3)(4), Mumba, Mumbai

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

ITA 1338/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. D/R
Section 148Section 249(4)(a)Section 250(6)Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 69Section 80C

Datia Vishvanath Trading Company, Sheetla Ganj Indergarh vs. Central Circle Gwalior, Main Building, Gwalior

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

ITA 171/AGR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(a)

M/S. Madeena Constructions, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc-8)1), Chennai

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

ITA 3031/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 249(4)(a)Section 250

Chetan Ram, Bhitu Bhimji vs. Income Tax Officer, Barmer

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

ITA 74/JODH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 May 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) rejected the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has not paid the advance-tax or has not discharged the obligation for payment of disputed tax, thereby contravening the provisions of section 249(4)(a) of the Act. So, the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in an exparte order passed without considering the assessee's submission. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an

For Appellant: Shri Amit KothariFor Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl.CIT (Sr.DR.)
Section 144Section 144oSection 249(4)(a)Section 250Section 69A

Laxmi Babu Debnath, Pune vs. ITO Ward 7(1), Pune

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

ITA 536/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.535 & 536/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Laxmi Babu Debnath, V The Income Tax Officer, Level 3, Riverside Business S Ward-7(1), Pune. Bay, Wellesley Road, Near Rto, Pune – 411001. Maharashtra. Pan: Acypd2630F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajiv Thakkar – Ar Revenue By Shri Madhan Thirmanpallil – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 14/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeal Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. These Two Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. We Treat Appeal In

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 249(4)Section 250Section 57

Laxmi Babu Debnath, Pune vs. ITO Ward 7(1), Pune

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

ITA 535/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.535 & 536/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Laxmi Babu Debnath, V The Income Tax Officer, Level 3, Riverside Business S Ward-7(1), Pune. Bay, Wellesley Road, Near Rto, Pune – 411001. Maharashtra. Pan: Acypd2630F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajiv Thakkar – Ar Revenue By Shri Madhan Thirmanpallil – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 14/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeal Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. These Two Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. We Treat Appeal In

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 249(4)Section 250Section 57

Manoj Prabhakar Kudtharkar, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 2322/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: None
Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)

Kalpana Subramaniam, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 13(1), Pune

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

ITA 514/PUN/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Apr 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.514/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Kalpana Subramaniam, V The Income Tax Officer, 19A, B/H Regene Park, Ganpati S Ward-13(1), Pune. Chowk, Lunkad Towers, Pune – 411014. Maharashtra. Pan: Aswps7131C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Akashay Surana (Virtual Hearing) Revenue By Shri Harish Bist – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: Thisappeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 28.12.2024For Assessment Year 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal

Section 148Section 148ASection 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 250oSection 271(1)(c)

Senniappan Mani, Tirupur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Tiruppur

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3230/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3230/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-2018) Senniappan Mani, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.7, Sivasakthi Nagar, Ward 2(1) 1St Street, K T C Main Road, Tirupur. Parappalayam, Tirupur 641 604. [Pan: Bbnpm 7005C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Senthil Kumar, Advocate Virtual, Erode ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. V. Aswathy, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.03.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 01.02.2024 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 232 Days In Filing The Appeal. Considering The Period Of Delay & Reasons Stated In Condonation Affidavit Given By The Assessee, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Adjudication. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment Was Completed U/S 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Act Wherein Ao Had Made Addition Of Rs.1,00,98,950/- U/S 69 On Account Of Unexplained Investment & Rs.1,11,66,838/- U/S 69A On Account Of Unexplained Money. Assessee Further Challenged The Order Of Assessment U/S 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Act Before The Ld.Cit(A) Who Did Not Admit The Appeal Of The Assessee For The Reason That The Assessee Has Not Paid An Amount Equal To The Amount Of Advance Tax Which Was Payable In The Light Of The Mandatory Provision Of Section 249(4)(B) Of The Act. The Assessee Is Now In Appeal Before The Tribunal With The Following Grounds:-

For Appellant: Shri. Senthil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. V. Aswathy, JCIT
Section 147Section 207Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(a)Section 249(4)(b)Section 69Section 69A