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)

ITO, Ncw - 3 (5), Chennai vs. Smt. M. Vijayalakshmi, Chennai

ITA 3344/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.3344/Chny/2019 िनधा*रण वष* /Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Income Tax Officer, Smt. M. Vijyalakshmi, Non Corporate Ward-3(5), Pm Tower, No.37, Chennai. Vs. Greams Road, Chennai – 600 006. [Pan: Agzpv-8594-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ, की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ./थ, की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.08.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2023 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

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

Ravinder Reddy Gaddam Raja, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 600/HYD/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 600/Hyd/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sri Ravinder Reddy Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Gaddam Raja, Income Tax, Hyderabad Central Circle-2(4), [Pan No. Agtpg0143P] Hyderabad अपीलार्थीर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapani, Ar राजस्‍वजस्‍व द्वारा / Revenue By: Shri K. Madhusudan, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख रीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख रीख/Pronouncement On: 17/08/2023 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, J.M: Aggrieved By The Order Dated 18/09/2020 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), In The Case Of Sri Ravinder Reddy Gaddam Raja (“The Assessee”) For The Assessment Year 2009-10, Assessee Preferred This Appeal. 2. At The Outset, Learned Ar Submitted That As Against The Assessment Order Dated 31/03/2013 For The Assessment Year 2009-10, Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Learned Cit(A), But The Learned Cit(A) Raised Objection That The Assessee Did Not Pay The Taxes Due On The Self- Assessment, And, Therefore, In Accordance With Section 249(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”), No Appeal Could Be Entertained. According To The Learned Ar, A Refund Was Due To The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2010-11 Of An Amount More Than The Demand For The Assessment Year 2009-10 And, Therefore, The Learned Cit(A) Was Incorrect In Refusing To Adjudicate The Appeal & Dismissing The Same.

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapani, ARFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 249(4)

Shashi Structural Engineers Private Limited, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 716/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year : 2017-18

Section 249(4)Section 250

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad vs. Srinivasa Chakravarthi Raju Gokaraju, Hyderabad

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 2114/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapani, ARFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 249(4)

Shri Narendra, Gautam Budh Nagar vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Noida

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

ITA 909/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 249(4)Section 69

White Cliff Tea Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-4(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 261/KOL/2023[White Chiff Tea Pvt. Ltd]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A No.261/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 White Cliff Tea Pvt. Ltd................................................................……Appellant 67-B, Ballygunge Circular Road, Ballygunge, Kolkata-700019. [Pan: Aaacw2211L] Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(2), Kolkata...........................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 15, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 14.02.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That, The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Grossly Erred In Law In Not Having Adjudicated Upon The Appeal Filed Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 15.12.2017 On The Sole Ground That Only The Last Page Of The Assessment Order Was Attached With Form No.35 Which Was Not As Per Mandatory Requirement In Spite Of The Fact That The Said Inadvertent Omission Was Never Pointed Out In Several Notices Issued Between 02.11.2018 & 27.12.2022 For Granting An Opportunity To The Assessee To Rectify The Said Inadvertent Omission & Moreover, The

Section 143(3)Section 249(4)Section 250

Rajpal, Uttar Pradesh vs. ITO Ward -2(3)(1), Bulandshahr

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

ITA 392/DEL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr.DR

Section 144Section 147Section 2(14)Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)

Globus Construction Private Limited, Noida vs. DCIT Circle-1, Ghaziabad

In the result appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1414/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2015-16 Globus Construction P. Ltd. The Dcit, Circle 1, C/O The 3C Company, Tech Ghaziabad Boulevard, Central Block, Vs. Plot No-6, Sec-127, Noida, Up 201301 Pan Aaecg 8128 L (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Rohit Tiwari, Advocate For Revenue : Shri T. James Singson, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 249

Parshuram Jagtap, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-23(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4550/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Us From 16/10/2018 Onwards Despite Service Of Notice On Various Dates. Since, This Is A Very Old Appeal & No Purpose Would Be Served By Keeping This Appeal Pending Before Us. Hence, We Proceed To Dispose Of This Appeal On Hearing The Ld. Dr & Based On The Materials Available On Record.

Section 131Section 144Section 148Section 249Section 269SSection 271DSection 44A

Vikram Singh, Gautam Budh Nagar vs. ITO Ward - 2(5), Noida

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6559/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon‟Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmavikram Singh, Vs. Ito, C/O. Chaman Singh, B-6 Ward-2(5), (Basement) Js Arcade, Near Noida Bikanerwala, Opp. Metro Pillar No. 65, Sector-18, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Up (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jmlps3035M

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mrinal Kumar Dass, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 207Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

Madresa Himayatul Islam Bachchon Ka Ghar, Bardoli vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Surat

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

ITA 279/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Surat02 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Madresa Himayatul Islam Bachchon Ka I.T.O. Ghar, Exemption Ward, Vs. Ground Floor Bachchon Ka Ghar, Surat. Kadod, Bardoli-394335. Pan No. Aadtm 1802 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 115BSection 12ASection 133(6)Section 144Section 249Section 249(4)Section 254(1)Section 69A

Snb Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

ITA 1529/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 249Section 250

Tricom India Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is dismissed

ITA 7445/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman आअसं.7445/मुं/2014 ("न.व. 2009-10) Tricom India Limited. Gandhi Estate, A.K.Road, Safed Pool, Sakinaka, Andheri-Kurla Road, Mumbai 400 072. Pan: Aaact-2807-R ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Ito-8(3)(3), 202, 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai 400 020. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : None ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Samuel Pitta सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 18/08/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 29/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Pitta

Section 249(4)

Niranjan Lal Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 34(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 6244/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shuklaas S.M.C. (Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Mohan SinhaFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash

Section 1Section 139Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 5

Bal Kishan Tyagi, Noida vs. ITO, Ward- 1(2), Noida

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

ITA 131/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Vs Ito, Bal Kishan Tyagi, Vill.-Sultanpur, Post-Gejha, Ward-1(2), Sector-128, Noida, Noida. Uttar Pradesh-201308 Pan-Afept3019H Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Sh. Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 20.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2022 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year

Section 208Section 209Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 68