Section 249(4) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.358

Section 249(4) 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) is ITO v. Seth Bros. (SC) (74 ITR 836), cited in 24 of the 251 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 249(4)

ITO v. Seth Bros. (SC)
74 ITR 836 · 1969 · Reported
24
citing judgments

Evidence collected during an illegal search can still be used against the assessee. An assessment made based on such evidence is valid.

CIT v. Ashoka Engineering Co.
194 ITR 645 · 1992 · Supreme Court
15
citing judgments

The right of appeal is conferred by statute and should be interpreted liberally and practically. Whether a right to appeal is available should be guided by the form, not the substance, of the order.

Komalakshi v. Dy. CIT
292 ITR 99 · 2007 · High Court
14
citing judgments

Admission of an appeal before the CIT(A) is subject to the mandatory condition of payment of tax due on the income returned by the assessee.

Indian Aluminium Co Ltd. v. CIT
162 ITR 788 · High Court
7
citing judgments
Govidappa Setty v. ITO
232 ITR 892 · High Court
7
citing judgments
Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT
124 STC 285 · 2001 · Supreme Court
3
citing judgments
Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT
66 ITR 319 · High Court
3
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 249(4)

Kathirvelu Subbarayan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-19(4), Chennai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3854/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy.S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3854/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Mr. Subash Anbaraju.K, Advocate
Section 148Section 148ASection 249Section 249(4)Section 250

Dilip Vengsarkar Foundation, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Exepmtion) 1(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7791/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokardilip Vengsarkar Ito(Exemption)- Foundation 1(2), A-5, Sportsfield, 9A Khan Vs. Room No. 620, 6Th Abdul Gaffar Khan Road, Floor, Cumball Hill Worli Colony, Worli, Mtnl Telephone Mumbai-400 030 Exchange Building, Pedder Road, Dr. G. S. Marg, Mumbai-400 026 Pan/Gir No. Aaatd1346G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Nikhil Damle & Shri Himmat Rajput, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.02.2026

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

Krishnappa Satish Kumar vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is allowed-in-part

ITA/248/2024HC Karnataka12 Feb 2026

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 153CSection 249(4)Section 249(4)(a)Section 260

Saratha, Virudhunagar vs. ITO Ward 3, Virudhunagar

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

ITA 3436/CHNY/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms.D. Geetha, CAFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 144Section 148Section 249(4)

Paneerselvam Subramaniam, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-5(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3068/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. Sanjay Aravind, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 249(4)Section 294(4)

Shri Imtiyaz Ahmad Beigh, Sri Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Srinagar

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 277/ASR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Bashir Ahmad Lone (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 249(4)

Shei Rajiv Nagari Patasavnstha Marya Hitani, Gadhinglaj vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Kolhapur, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1727/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Indira R. Adakil
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 68Section 80P(2)(a)

Jashvantiben Girishbhai Patel, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(2), Surat

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

ITA 274/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Surat22 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

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

Section 147Section 234ASection 249(4)Section 250Section 250(6)

Rakesh Kumar, Barabanki vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(5), Barabanki

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 438/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Rakesh Kumar V. The Income Tax Officer Naka Paisar Ward 5(5) Deen Dayal Nagar Barabanki Barabanki (U.P) Tan/Pan:Awkpk2247F (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.12.2023, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Deposited Rs.11,40,000/- During The Demonetization Period, I.E., From 09.11.2016 To 30.12.2016 In His Bank Account No.752530110000014 Maintained With Bank Of India, Subeha Bazar, Haidergarh. Thereafter, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Issued Statutory Notices To The Assessee, Requiring The Assessee To Explain The Source Of Cash Deposits In His Bank Account. Since There Was No Compliance From The Side Of The

For Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 144Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 68

Rajat Kumar Gupta, Ramanujganj, Balrampur vs. Income Tax Officer-1, Ambikapur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 737/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 736 & 737/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Rajat Kumar Gupta, V Income Tax Officer-1, Near Power House Road, S Kharsiya Marg, Tatapani, Ramanujganj, S.O., Near Ambika Petrol Pump, Surguja- 497220, C.G. Ambikapur-497335, C.G. Pan: Bpfpg5887N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) . . िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 05.01.2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: Since Facts, Grounds & Issues Involved Therein Are Common & Identical; Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together For Adjudication By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69Section 69A

Rajat Kumar Gupta, Surguja, Ambikapur vs. Income Tax Officer-1, Ambikapur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 736/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 736 & 737/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Rajat Kumar Gupta, V Income Tax Officer-1, Near Power House Road, S Kharsiya Marg, Tatapani, Ramanujganj, S.O., Near Ambika Petrol Pump, Surguja- 497220, C.G. Ambikapur-497335, C.G. Pan: Bpfpg5887N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) . . िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 05.01.2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: Since Facts, Grounds & Issues Involved Therein Are Common & Identical; Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together For Adjudication By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69Section 69A

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

Sugrabahen Umer Bhorania, Mumbai vs. Ward 20(3)(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chambers

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

ITA 5741/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Sugrabahen Umer Bhorania Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 6Th Floor, Flat 602, Murga Giran 20(3)(1), Mumbai Chs, Grant Road (E), Mumbai Piramal Chambers, Mumbai 400008 400012 Pan: (Cddpb8620D) Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Ms. Shruti Kalyanikar-Advocate Respondent By : Shri Arun Kanti Datta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.11.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1078510218(1) Dated 15.07.2025 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Income Tax Officer Ward 20(3)(1), Mumbai U/S. 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 23.09.2024 For Ay 2016-17. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Hon'Ble Cit(A) Erred In Upholding Penalty Of Rs. 45,10,345/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act & The 2

For Appellant: Ms. Shruti Kalyanikar-AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 271(1)(c)

Shashank Jayendra Rajput, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(2), Vadodara

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

ITA 1698/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Tr Senthil Kumarshashank Jayendra Rajput, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. 122 Kalakunj Society, Ward-3(1)(2), Opp. Rushi Mandap, Vadodara. Karelibaug Water Tank Road, Vadodara-390001. [Pan :Aoipr3247 L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Harjotsinh Kassowal, Ar Respondent By: Shri Rohit Aasudani, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Harjotsinh Kassowal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Aasudani, Sr. DR
Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)

Assifuddin Mehboob Khan, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5531/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Ramchandran, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 156Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 69

Haribabu Yenuganti, Ongole vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ongole

ITA 1476/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 249Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 69A

Sarfaraz Salim Kacchi, Sangli vs. Income Tax Officer, Sangli

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

ITA 1935/PUN/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Nov 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajitesh Meena
Section 147Section 249(4)Section 250(6)Section 69

Harshvardhan Management & Consultants Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 10(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1797/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year : 2014-15 Harshvardhan Management Income Tax Officer & Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Ward-10(1)(1), R.H. 19, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Powai Vihar R.H.S. Ltd. M.K. Road, Chandivali, Powai, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400076. Pan : Aabch9837J (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ashok Patil For Revenue : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 30-10-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-10-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashok PatilFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)

Syed Asif Ali, Lucknow vs. DCIT-1, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 249/LKW/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow16 Oct 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2021-22 Syed Asif Ali, Vs. Dcit-1, 4/19 Vikas Khand, Gomti Nagar, U.P. Lucknow Pan: Aedpa5031J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. B.P. Yadav, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Mazhar Akram, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Addl / Jcit(A), Ahmedabad Dated 27.01.2025, Wherein The Ld. Addl / Jcit Has Dismissed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Dated 22.07.2022, In Limine. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Ld. Cit(A)"] Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant Without Looking Into The Merit Of The Case. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Aggregated Additions Of Rs. 3,04,76,240/-Made By The Assessing Authority To The Returned Income Of The Assessee While Processing The Return Of Income U/S 143(1) Of The I.T. Act By Grossly Ignoring The Settled Law That The Provisions Contained U/S 143(1) Of The Act Does Not Empower The Assessing Officer To Make Any Addition Which Is In The Nature Of Debate & Discussions & Also Requires Detailed Explanations & Submissions From The Assessee. 3. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.2,33,88,200/-Made By The Ld. A.O. On The Wrong Premise That The Amount Of The Contingent Liabilities Of Rs.2,33,88,200/- Disclosed By The Auditors At Column 21(G) Of Their Form 3Cd Were Debited To The Profit & Loss Account Of The Year Under Consideration Ignoring The Fact That It Was Just A Disclosure Of The Contingent

For Appellant: Sh. B.P. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Mazhar Akram, CIT DR
Section 143(1)

Gyan Vikas Samiti, Ambedkar Nagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ambedkar Nagar

In the result, the impugned orders of the Ld

ITA 8/ALLD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

For Appellant: (Application)For Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. CIT(DR)
Section 10Section 249(4)Section 253(3)