What is the leading case on Section 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act?

IPCA v. Gajanand Meena (329 ITR 249) is the decision most relied on for Section 249(4)(b), cited in 16 judgments.

Which cases are most cited on Section 249(4)(b)?

IPCA v. Gajanand Meena (329 ITR 249) — 16 citing judgments; Hotel Sai Siddi (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (13 Taxmann.com 155) — 14 citing judgments; Vishnusharan Chandravanshi v. ITO (161 Taxmann.com 803) — 13 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 249(4)(b)?

BharatTax indexes 347 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

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

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.358

Section 249(4)(b) 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)(b) is IPCA v. Gajanand Meena (329 ITR 249), cited in 16 of the 347 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 249(4)(b)

IPCA v. Gajanand Meena

329 ITR 249 · 2010 · High Court

citing judgments

Hotel Sai Siddi (P) Ltd. v. DCIT

13 Taxmann.com 155 · 2011 · Reported

citing judgments

An assessee's appeal should be admitted if they incurred a loss and were therefore not liable to pay advance tax as required by section 249(4)(b). In such cases, the appeal should be decided on its merits by the CIT(A).

Vishnusharan Chandravanshi v. ITO

161 Taxmann.com 803 · 2024 · Reported

citing judgments

An assessee is not obligated to compute and pay advance tax under sections 208 and 209 if they have no taxable income. Consequently, an appeal should not be dismissed for non-payment of advance tax in such circumstances.

Judgments on Section 249(4)(b)

Vandana Singh, Noida vs. ITO 5(2)(5) Noida, Noida

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

ITA 2816/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarvandana Singh, Ito, 5(2)(5), 302, Abhinav Apartments, Noida, U.P. Vasundhra Enclave V. Delhi-110096 Pan-Dcrps8979A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 69

Shri Tariq Ahmad Dar, Anantnag vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Udhampur

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

ITA 422/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Mohd. Iqbal Untoo, C.A

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 210Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 69A

Mehal Singh, Jhallian Khurd, Rupnagar vs. ITO Ward-2(2), Ropar

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 806/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: The Cit(A), All The Notices & The Impugned Order Were Communicated At The Old Email Address Of The Earlier Counsel & Not At The Updated Email Address Furnished In The Income-Tax Records. Consequently, The Assessee Remained Unaware Of The Dismissal Of The Appeal & Came To Know About It Only When Recovery Proceedings Were Initiated. Immediately Thereafter He Consulted His Counsel & Steps Were Taken To File The Present Appeal. It Has Further Been Submitted That The Assessee Is A Senior Citizen Suffering From Hypertension & Diabetes & Due To Medical Complications

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 249Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)

Rinki Singh, Jamshedpur Telco vs. ITO Ward 2(1) Jamshedpur, Jamshedpur

ITA 56/RAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Rinki Singh, I.T.O., Flat No. 5703, Prakirti Shanti Valley Ward 2(1), Vs. Society, Hurlung, Telco, Jamshedpur. Jamshedpur-831004 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Issps 0698 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 249Section 270ASection 56(2)(x)

Balraj Singh, Shahjahanpur vs. ITO-I(5), Shahjahanpur

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 857/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 249(4)(b)Section 253(3)

Rekha Khandelwal, Rajgarh vs. ITO Ward Rajgarh, Rajgarh

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 649/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2014-15 Rekha Khandelwal, Income-Tax Officer, Ward No.2, Near Chote Ward Rajgarh Hanuman Mandir, बनाम/ Rajgarh Bus Stand Vs. S.O. Rajgarh, (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Eljpk1548B Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 253(5)Section 68

Dharmendra Rikhavchand Shah, HUF, Himatnagar vs. NFAC, Delhi Present Huris.the ITO, Ward-1, Himatnagar

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

ITA 2680/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151A

Prashant Jugalkishore Rathi, Akola vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Akola

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 29/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Prashant Jugalkishore Rathi Ito, Ward–3, Akola Laxmi Nagar Shrinath Apartment, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Murtizapur Gaurakshan Road, Road, Maharashtra – 444107. Maharashtra – 444004. [Pan: Aocpr1040K] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Mrs. Shikha Loya, Ca Revenue By Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit–Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.02.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh:

Section 144Section 249Section 249(4)(b)Section 250(6)Section 254(1)Section 41(1)

Shree Gajanan Mahila Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Satara vs. Income Tax Officer 1, Satara

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

ITA 3161/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.3161/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Shree Gajanan Mahila Vs. Income Tax Officer, Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Ward-1, Satara Patsanstha Maryadit, A/P. Vahagaon, Tal. Karad, Satara 415110 Maharashtra Pan : Aahas3528D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Shahakar

Section 147Section 249(4)(b)Section 250(6)

Bashir Ahmad Rah, Rehpora vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Srinagar

The appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 176/ASR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar03 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Shri Udayan Dasguptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 175 & 176/Asr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2016-17 Bashir Ahmad Rah, The Ito, Khudwani Wanpoh, V Ward 1, Jammu & Kashmir S Srinagar 192331 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Cehpr7830E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Virtual Hearing Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Farhat Khan, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2026

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Farhat Khan, CIT DR

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 210Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

Bashir Ahmad Rah, Rehpora vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Srinagar

The appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 175/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar03 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Farhat Khan, CIT DR

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 210Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

Madhukar Ganpat Dhakwal, Mangaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5, New Panvel

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

ITA 2434/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kant Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.2434 & 2418/Pun/2025 धििाारण वषा /Assessment Year: 2018-19 Madhukar Ganpat Ito, Ward 8(5), Dhakwal, Raigad 1/B At Tilore Post Vs. Vighawali Tal Mangaon, Wighawali B.O Tilore, Raigarh Maharashtra Pan-Bfopd7627G अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By: Ca Hiral D. Sejpal & Ankita P. Gorde Department By: Smt. Sonal L Sonkavde, Addl-Cit Date Of Hearing: 03-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 16-03-2026 आदेश/Order Per Shri Vinay Bhamore: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Same Order Dated 25.08.2025 Passed By Ld. [Cit(A)] Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Respondent: Smt. Sonal L Sonkavde

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 50C

Madhukar Ganpat Dhakwal, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 8(5), Raigad

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

ITA 2418/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

For Respondent: Smt. Sonal L Sonkavde

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 50C

Narottambhai Chhotubhai Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(1), Surat

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

ITA 1185/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Surat30 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 144Section 147Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

Hemendra Kumar Menaria, Udaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Udaipur

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 769/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

Section 249(4)(b)Section 271A(1)

Hemendra Kumar Menaria, Udaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Udaipur

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 767/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

Section 249(4)(b)Section 271A(1)

Hemendra Kumar Menaria, Udaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Udaipur

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 766/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

Section 249(4)(b)Section 271A(1)

Pranay Mohan Lokegaonkar, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 22(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7400/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2015-16 Pranay Mohan Lokegaonkar, Ito, Ward 22 (2)(1), 1, Vatsala Niwas, Sohan Singh Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. Chawl, Santacruz-West,- Mumbai – 400012. Mumbai- 400054. Pan – Acxpl4887B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vishwas Mehendale, (Virtually Present) Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.10.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2015-16. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessing Officer, Vide Assessment Order Dated 29.03.2022 Under Section 147 Read With Sections 144 & 144B Of The Act, Has Made The Additions Of Rs.36,00,000/- & Rs.1,12,50,000/- On Account Of Unexplained Investment Under Section 69 Of The Act & Claim Of Long-Term Capital Gain Respectively. 2 Pranay Mohan Lokegaonkar

For Appellant: Shri Vishwas MehendaleFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, SR. D.R

Section 147Section 249Section 250Section 69

Roshan Ali, Proprietor M/S Sagar Dairy vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3)(5), Income Tax Department

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 125/DDN/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Roshan Ali, Proprietor Vs. Income Tax Officer, M/S. Sagar Dairy, Ward-1(3)(5), Dargah Pahari Gate Near Roorkee Pani Ki Tanki, Piran Kaliyar, Roorkee, Uttarakhand Pan :Bsepa8697Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr

Section 249(4)(b)Section 250(6)

Apmc Tarikere, Tarikere vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chickmagalur

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

ITA 1442/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri C.R. Vasanth Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R

Section 10Section 10(1)Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(7)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250