Section 249 of the Income Tax Act
Income-tax Act, 2025: s.358
Section 249 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 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 is 11th June, 1996. 4. In Trustees of H.E.H. the Nizam’s Supplemental Family Trust v. CIT (242 ITR 381), cited in 32 of the 507 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.
Leading authorities on Section 249
Reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act cannot be initiated unless the assessment proceedings based on a previously filed return have been terminated. Notice for reassessment cannot be issued while original assessment proceedings are pending.
The date of acquisition of shares, particularly in the context of rights issues, is the date the company's offer to subscribe to shares is made, not the date of allotment, physical issuance, or payment.
Appeals should normally be decided on merits rather than dismissed on technical grounds like delay, unless there is gross negligence or mala fide intention by the assessee.
A party must provide a valid explanation for each day of delay in filing an appeal and demonstrate a reasonable cause that was beyond their control.
Profits arising from statutory obligations, such as setting apart amounts for consumer rebates, are distinct from commercial profits and are governed by separate enactments. Such 'clear profits' are determined by statute, not commercial principles.
Appeals filed beyond the time limit permitted under section 249 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are not maintainable if there is no sufficient cause for the delay, leading to dismissal under sections 250 read with 251.
Income accrues or arises to an assessee when it becomes due to him, even if it is not actually received. The taxing of income is based on real income, not notional income.
The expression 'sufficient cause' for condoning delay in filing an appeal should be liberally construed, with paramount importance given to advancing substantial justice. However, this principle must be applied judiciously based on the specific facts of each case.
The decision in Ravindra Kr. Verma v. CIT (2016) is cited as authority for principles related to assessments, likely concerning search and seizure proceedings, as indicated by the keywords and section numbers commonly associated with it.
