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

ITO v. Seth Bros. (SC) (74 ITR 836) — 24 citing judgments; CIT v. Ashoka Engineering Co. (194 ITR 645) — 15 citing judgments; Komalakshi v. Dy. CIT (292 ITR 99) — 14 citing judgments; Indian Aluminium Co Ltd. v. CIT (162 ITR 788) — 7 citing judgments; Govidappa Setty v. ITO (232 ITR 892) — 7 citing judgments.

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

BharatTax indexes 251 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 249(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 249(4) of the Income Tax Act

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

ITO v. Seth Bros. (SC) (74 ITR 836) is the decision most relied on for Section 249(4), cited in 24 judgments. Evidence collected during an illegal search can still be used against the assessee. An assessment made based on such evidence is valid.

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

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

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

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

citing judgments

Govidappa Setty v. ITO

232 ITR 892 · High Court

citing judgments

Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT

124 STC 285 · 2001 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT

66 ITR 319 · High Court

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 249(4)

Shivratan Motilalji Rathi HUF, Pune vs. ITO, Jalna

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

ITA 605/PUN/2025[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2025AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.605 & 606/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2011-12 Shivratan Motilalji Rathi Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Jalna. Huf, Rathi Rathi & Co., 501-504, Akshay Landmarks, Opp. Pu La Garden, Sinhagad Road, Jalna- 411030. Pan : Aaehr5318G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Miss Smruti Sabnis Revenue By Shri Akhilesh Srivastva : Date Of Hearing 24.07.2025 : Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 21.10.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. There Is Delay Of 64 Days In Filing Of The Present Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Affidavit For Condonation That The Applicant Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeals Within The Prescribed Time Limit. Ld. Dr Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection To Condone The Delay, Therefore We Condone The Delay Of 64 Days & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals. 3. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 4. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.605/Pun/2025 For Assessment Year 2008-09 As The Lead Case For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Miss Smruti Sabnis

Section 142(1)Section 142ASection 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 249(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

Shivratan Motilalji Rathi HUF, Pune vs. ITO, Jalna

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

ITA 604/PUN/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.604/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Shivratan Motilalji Rathi Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Jalna. Huf, Rathi Rathi & Co., 501-504, Akshay Landmarks, Opp. Pu La Garden, Sinhagad Road, Jalna- 411030. Pan : Aaehr5318G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Miss Smruti Sabnis Revenue By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2025 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.10.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “Ground 1. The Appellant Requests Your Honor To Condone The Delay Of 64 Days In Filing The Appeal As The Delay Was Due To Unforeseen Circumstances Beyond The Control Of The Appellant.

For Appellant: Miss Smruti SabnisFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva

Section 142(1)Section 142ASection 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

Manish Nanalal Dudhaiya, Badlapur vs. Commissionar ITO, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2019/MUM/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalmanish Nanalal Dudhaiya Vs. Ito – 2(2) 10, Chinar Society 2Nd Floor Wayle Nagar Ambarnath, Thane, Kulgaon Mohan Plaza, So, 421503 Khadakpada Kalian Pan/Gir No. Aibpd6371L (Applicant) (Respondent)

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

Sushma Haresh Ubale, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(2)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 1274/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 Rajesh Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. D/R

Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

Cellpap India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 9(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2339/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarcellpap India Pvt Ltd Vs. Ito – 19(2)(1) 602, Vishwa Nanak, Ict 601A, Aaykar Bhavan Link Road, Chakala, Mk Road, New Marine Andheri East, Mumbai. Lines, Mumbai Pan/Gir No. Aabcc7103J (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 249(4)Section 250

Gauri Sagar Shivale, Pune vs. ITO Ward 8(3), Pune

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

ITA 101/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.101/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Gauri Sagar Shivale, Income Tax Officer, S. No. 32/4, Nimbalkar Nagar, Ward – 8(3), Pune Brt Road, Near Rajiv Gandhi Vs. College, Tathawade, Mulshi, Pune-411033 Pan : Bjipp4685G अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S. Pathak Department By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 15-05-2025 Date Of 21-07-2025 Pronouncement :

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 156Section 2(47)Section 249Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 80T

Amarjeet Singh, Panipat vs. ITO Ward-1, Sonipat

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

ITA 2694/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.2694/िद"ी/2025 (िन.व. 2012-13) Amarjeet Singh, C/O J B Sharma, Advocate, 72, Bmk Market, Nr Hotel Hive, Gt Road, Panipat, Haryana 132103 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Akupa-5828-Q बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Aayakar Bhawan, Atlas Road, Sonipat, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Haryana 133001 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : None "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 15/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)] Dated 27.01.2025, For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 23 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Citing Reasons Causing Delay In Filing Of Appeal. After Perusal Of The Same, I Am Satisfied That Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Not Intentional, The Delay Has Been Caused For The Reasons Stated In Application Which Appears To Be Bonafide. Thus, Delay Of 2 23 Days In Filing Of Appeal Is Condoned & Appeal Is Admitted For Decision On Merits. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case As Emanating From Records Are: The Assessee Is A Trader In General Goods. During The Period Relevant To Assessment Year Under Appeal, The Assessee Had Deposited Cash Amounting To Rs.14,09,740/- In His Three Bank Account I.E.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)

Ayeshabee Babu Khan, Mankhured vs. ITO 27 1 1 Mumbai, Vashi Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 2887/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailayeshabee Babu Khan, 1, Mankhured Station Road, T.F. Donar S.O., Mumbai – 400088 ............... Appellant Pan : Cgopk4227M V/S Ito – 27(1)(1), Vashi Railway Station, ……………… Respondent 3X7X Gqp 3Rd & 4Th Floor, 6Th Tower Complex Vashi, Navi Mumbai. Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra Shah Revenue By : Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 249Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 251

Yadvendra Pratap Singh, U.S.Nagar vs. ITO, Rudrapur

In the result, the Appeal of the Appellant is partly allowed for

ITA 39/DDN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 39/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2017-18) Yaduvendra Pratap Chand Vs. Ito Matta Garg & Co. Chartered Ward -2 (1)(5), Bhagwada Accountants, 15, Astley Hall, Kichha Road Rudrapur, U. Dehradun-248001 S. Nagar, Uttarakhand, Pan: Aghpc5432F Dehradun Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. S. K. Mattal, Ca Revenue By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/07/2025

Section 144Section 249(4)

Ramesh, Gawali Palasia, Mhow vs. ITO-5(1), Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 1/IND/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiramesh, Income Tax Officer- बनाम/ 387, Malwiya Mohalla, 5(1), Vs. Gawali Palasia, Indore Mhow, Indore

Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 249(4)Section 253Section 69A

Kdp Buildwell P.Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 524/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmam/S. Kdp Buildwell Pvt. Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, A-213, 1St Floor, Shanti Gopal Chamber, Ghaziabad. Vikas Marg, Shakarpur, Delhi – 110 092. (Pan :Aabcs6353E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suresh Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.04.2025 Date Of Order : 25.06.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Iv, Kanpur [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 23.03.2018 For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, A Search & Seizure Operation Under Section 132 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) Was Conducted On 26.09.2014 On The Premises Of The Assessee Comprising Kdp/Mgp Group Of Cases. Based On The Incriminating Material Found During The Search, A Notice

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 140ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 153C

Dhaval Mahendrakumar Patel, Mumbai vs. The ITO, Ward 42(1)(2), Mumbai.

In the result, the assessee succeeded on

ITA 1226/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Hybrid Hearing) Dhaval Mahrndrakumar Patel Ito, Ward-42(1)(2), Mumbai 117 Ba, Panchratna, Opera House, Vs Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai – 400004. Bandra Kurla Complex, [Pan No. Aoapp1829A] Mumbai,Maharashtra-400051 Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 254(1)Section 69

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

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

Rajesh Kanjibhai Koriya, Upleta vs. The ITO Ward 1 (2) (2) Rajkot, Rajkot

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 165/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.165/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Dipen Sukhdia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-DR

Section 144Section 250

Ravindra Balasaheb Raykar, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), Pune

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

ITA 284/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Yash Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(a)Section 249(4)(b)

Kandasamy Govindaraj, Dharmapuri vs. ITO, Ward-1, Dharmapuri

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

ITA 365/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 364 & 365 /Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Kandasamy Govindaraj, Ito, 56, Anna Nagar, Rayappa Colony, Vs. Ward -1, Kumarasamypet Post, Dharmapuri. Dharmapuri – 636 703. [Pan: Anppg-2860-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. S. Mathangi, Advocate (Virtual)For Respondent: Mr. Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT

Section 147Section 249Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A