Section 249

Section 249 — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section 249, in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v Mst. Katiji Supreme CourtCuts both ways
  Your appeal is late. How strictly will 'sufficient cause' be read?
  Liberally. A litigant gains nothing by filing late, refusal can destroy a meritorious cause at the threshold, and where substantial justice and technical considerations clash, substantial justice must win.
• CIT v Pawan Kumar Laddha Supreme CourtCuts both ways
  Is payment of admitted tax under s.249(4) a condition that must be satisfied again when the appeal goes on to the Tribunal?
  The Supreme Court treated s.249(4)(a) as a mandatory condition for the admission of a first appeal by the CIT(A), but held that the condition belongs to s.249 alone and cannot be read into s.253(1)(b). Once satisfied at the first-appeal stage, the assessee does not have to pay the admitted tax over again to appeal to the Tribunal.
• Chhatmull Agarwal v CIT High CourtCuts both ways
  Can an assessee appeal against an addition he agreed to during the assessment?
  The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that an assessee's agreement to an addition recorded in the assessment order does not take away the statutory right of appeal. The remedy of appeal can be availed of notwithstanding the recital of consent, because the Act contains no bar founded on agreement.
• CIT v Manojkumar Beriwal High CourtCuts both ways
  Does the tax to be paid before an appeal is admitted under s.249(4) include interest under ss.234A, 234B and 234C?
  The CIT(A) dismissed an appeal because the assessee had paid the tax but not the s.234B/234C interest, treating 'tax' in s.249(4) as including interest. The Bombay High Court upheld the Tribunal's reversal, holding that 'tax' is separately defined in s.2(43) and 'interest' in s.2(28A), and that the expression 'tax' in s.249(4) does not include interest.
• Mohd. Farooque Mohd. Rafique Bagban v ITO ITATHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  Your first appeal is more than a year late because of illness. Is it too late?
  Not necessarily. Illness during the pandemic was accepted as sufficient cause, a delay of about thirteen to fourteen months was condoned, and all three appeals were sent back to the CIT(A) to be decided on merits.

Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.