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)

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)

Chattar Singh, Mohali vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(4), Mohali

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 459/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A. and Smt. Shruti Khandelwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 249(2)(b)Section 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)

Shaju Raman Arangath, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(2), Kalyan

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1064/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Shaju Raman Arangath Ito Ward 3(2) 502, Apollonia, Triveni Rani Mansion Laurel, Next To Rto Vs. 2Nd Floor Near Birla School Murbad Road Kalyan West Kalyan Maharashtra-421 301. Maharashtra-421301. Pan : Ammpa5973C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh ThakwaniFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Mehta
Section 144Section 147Section 249(4)Section 270ASection 285B

S.Latha, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1381/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.N.V.Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.S. Anu Radha, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 249(4)Section 80G

Rina S. Mehta, Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-4(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

ITA 704/MUM/2023[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2025AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 144Section 234ASection 249(4)Section 250

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(1), Mumbai vs. Smt Reena Sudhir Mehta, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1177/MUM/2023[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2025AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel (Spl. Counsel for the department), Sr. DR
Section 144Section 234ASection 249(4)Section 250

Sagar Jaywant Elawande, Pune vs. ITO, Ward13(1), Pune

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

ITA 224/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.224/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sagar Jaywant Elawande, Vs. Ito, Ward-13(1), Pune. 457, Shaniwar Peth, Pune City, Pune- 411030. Pan : Aampe1025B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Digambar Surwase Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Derived Income From Salary & Also Sold Immovable Property But Return Of Income Was Not Filed. On The Basis Of Above Information, The Case Was Reopened U/S 147 & Notices U/S 148A(B), 148 & 142(1) Respectively Were Issued To The Assessee. Since The Assessee Did Not Reply To Any Of The Notices

For Appellant: Shri Digambar SurwaseFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 147Section 148ASection 249Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 69

Mohammad Zuber Ibrhim Patel, Taloja vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 469/MUM/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Prateek JainFor Respondent: Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 107Section 147Section 148

Mohammad Zuber Ibrhim Patel, Taloja vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 468/MUM/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

Section 147Section 148

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

Mahanth Kumar Singh, Muzaffarpur vs. ITO, Muzaffarpur

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

ITA 232/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna20 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 249Section 250Section 69A

Russell Adrian Rodrigues, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 23(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 98/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No98/Mum/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Russel Adrian Rodrigues, Vs. Ito, Ward-23(3)(1), 101, Diiago, “B” Sherly Ranjan Mumbai Road, Bandra West, Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Adwpr 7259 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Subhash Chhajed, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/02/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/02/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm : The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Impugned Order Dated 28/12/2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act (“The Act”) By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Learned Cit(A)”], For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: – 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Dismissing The Assessee'S Appeal On Account Of Non-Compliance Of Section 249(4)(A) & 249(4)(B) Of The It Act., 1961 Completely Disregarding The Fact That Assessee Has Filed The Return & Paid The Due Tax Thereon As Mentioned In The Column 8.1 Of The Appeal Form No. 35. The Appellant Therefore Prays To Remand Back The Matter To Hon. Cit(A) For A Fresh Adjudication On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Chhajed, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 249(4)Section 249(4)(a)Section 250Section 250(6)

Pravin Sakharam Gulambe, Raigad vs. ITO Ward 5, Panvel

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

ITA 2674/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2674/Pun/2024 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Shri Pravin Sakharam Vs Ito, Ward-5, Gulambe, Panvel Shubham Raje Enterprises House No. 70 A, At Bhagad, Post Vile Tal Mangaon, Dist Raigad 402308, Maharashtra Pan-Aslpg2336A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Chandan KatariyaFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl
Section 144Section 147Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 250(6)

Raj Kishore Upadhyay, Gopalganj vs. ITO, Siwan

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

ITA 459/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna04 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 249(4)Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

Shiv Nandan Prasad Suman, Madhubani vs. ITO, Ward - 6(1), Patna

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 374/PAT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.374/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shiv Nandan Prasad Suman….....…..…………………....Appellant Laukaha, Madhubani, Bihar-847421. [Pan: Aitps3598Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(1), Patna…....….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Mayank Manvendra, Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 30, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.02.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual. The Assessment Order Was Framed In The Case Of The Assessee U/S 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Act As The Assessee Failed To File Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2013-14 Within The Prescribed Limit. The Assessing Officer Determined Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.20,24,948/- By Making Certain Additions In Respect Of Unexplained Investment Of Rs.1445000/- U/S 69 Of The Act, Salary Income Of Rs.576492/- & Interest Income Of Rs.3456/-.

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

Gurujala Babu Rao, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1379/HYD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1379/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Gurujala Babu Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 11(1) Pan:Bsmpr6925C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S.Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Y. Srikanth Reddy, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 20/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22/01/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Y. Srikanth Reddy, DR
Section 139Section 144Section 148Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 50C

Mohammad Amjad Ali Sahaji, Habra, Ashokenagar vs. Ward 50(2) Kolkata, Income Tax

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

ITA 631/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

Hingora Ali Mohd Vali Mohd, Parbhani Maharashtra vs. Income Tax Office Ward Hingoli, Parbhani Maharashtra

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

ITA 2143/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2143/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Hingora Ali Mohd Vali Mohd, V The Income Tax Officer, Opp. Amol Petrol Pumb, S Ward Hingoli, Parbhani, Basmath Road, Karegaon, Maharashtra. Parbhani – 431902. Pan: Anopk6751F Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajendra Agiwal– Ar Revenue By Shri Akhilesh Srivastava – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 07/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/01/2025 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(Appeals)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 For Assessment Year 2017-18; Dated 14.08.2024, Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 144 Of The Act, Dated 27.12.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal As Non-Admitted U/S 249(4) Of The Act.

Section 144Section 208Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 44A

Harjit Singh, Ludhiana vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1), Mohali, Punjab

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

ITA 128/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं . / ITA No.128/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Harjit Singh C/o M/s VV Bhalla & Company, E-64, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana- 141001 स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: BLAPS8802E अपीलार्थी/Appellant बनाम The ITO Ward 6(1), Mohali प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Pankaj Bhalla, C.A राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 01/01/2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement :

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Bhalla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT
Section 144Section 148Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)