Section 249 — Form of Appeal and Limitation

CHAPTER XX — APPEALS AND REVISION | A.—Appeals to the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) and Commissioner (Appeals)

Section 249 — Form of Appeal and Limitation

Case Laws & Commentary — Income-tax Act, 1961 (as amended by the Finance Act, 2026) — bharattax.co Treatise

Status: Live. Prescribes the form (Form 35), the 30-day limitation, condonation for sufficient cause, and the payment-of-tax pre-conditions in sub-section (4).

Finance Act, 2026: No amendment. The Finance Act, 2026 does not touch section 249.

Nature / mechanism: Procedural gateway to the first appeal: form and verification (sub-s.1), limitation of 30 days from the relevant event (sub-s.2), discretion to condone delay on sufficient cause (sub-s.3), and the mandatory payment of admitted tax / advance tax as a condition of maintainability (sub-s.4).

Litigation profile: Frequently litigated on two fronts: condonation of delay under sub-section (3) and the mandatory character of sub-section (4)(a)/(b).

A. COMMENTARY

Limitation and its computation

Sub-section (2) fixes 30 days — from the date of payment of tax (s.248 appeals), from the date of service of the demand notice (assessment), or from the date of service of the order/intimation, as applicable. The day of service and the time for obtaining a copy are excluded (read with section 268). The right being substantive, limitation is procedural and condonable.

Condonation of delay — 'sufficient cause' liberally construed

Sub-section (3) empowers the first appellate authority to admit a belated appeal on sufficient cause. The Supreme Court's consistent counsel is a justice-oriented, liberal approach: substantial justice should prevail over technicality where the delay is not mala fide or a device. Each case turns on its own facts; the length of delay is less important than the acceptability of the explanation.

Sub-section (4): payment of tax as a condition precedent

Clause (a) bars admission of an appeal unless the tax due on the returned income has been paid; clause (b) (where no return is filed) requires payment of an amount equal to the advance tax payable, with a proviso permitting the appellate authority, on an application, to exempt the appellant for good and sufficient reasons. Clause (a) is mandatory and jurisdictional: an appeal filed in breach is not maintainable, though the defect is curable by payment, whereupon the appeal is treated as competent from the date of cure.

B. STATUTORY TEXT (verbatim)

Reproduced verbatim from the Income-tax Act, 1961 (as amended up to the Finance Act, 2025); the Finance Act, 2026 makes no change to this section. Inline numerals in square brackets are the bare Act's amendment-footnote markers.

Form of appeal and limitation.

249. (1) Every appeal under this Chapter shall be in the prescribed form and shall be verified in the prescribed manner and shall, in case of an appeal made to the Commissioner (Appeals) on or after the 1st day of October, 1998 65[or to the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) on or after the 1st day of April, 2023,] irrespective of the date of initiation of the assessment proceedings relating thereto be accompanied by a fee of,—

(i) where the total income of the assessee as computed by the Assessing Officer in the case to which the appeal relates is one hundred thousand rupees or less, two hundred fifty rupees;

(ii) where the total income of the assessee, computed as aforesaid, in the case to which the appeal relates is more than one hundred thousand rupees but not more than two hundred thousand rupees, five hundred rupees;

(iii) where the total income of the assessee, computed as aforesaid, in the case to which the appeal relates is more than two hundred thousand rupees, one thousand rupees;

(iv) where the subject matter of an appeal is not covered under clauses (i), (ii) and (iii), two hundred fifty rupees.

(2) The appeal shall be presented within thirty days of the following date, that is to say,—

(a) where the appeal is under section 248, the date of payment of the tax, or

(b) where the appeal relates to any assessment or penalty, the date of service of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty:

Provided that, where an application has been made under section 146 for reopening an assessment, the period from the date on which the application is made to the date on which the order passed on the application is served on the assessee shall be excluded :

Provided further that where an application has been made under sub-section (1) of section 270AA, the period beginning from the date on which the application is made, to the date on which the order rejecting the application is served on the assessee, shall be excluded, or

(c) in any other case, the date on which intimation of the order sought to be appealed against is served.

(2A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), where an order has been made under section 201 on or after the 1st day of October, 1998 but before the 1st day of June, 2000 and the assessee in default has not presented any appeal within the time specified in that sub-section, he may present such appeal before the 1st day of July, 2000.

(3) The 66[Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the] Commissioner (Appeals) may admit an appeal after the expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period.

(4) No appeal under this Chapter shall be admitted unless at the time of filing of the appeal,—

(a) where a return has been filed by the assessee, the assessee has paid the tax due on the income returned by him; or

(b) where no return has been filed by the assessee, the asssssessee has paid an amount equal to the amount of advance tax which was payable by him:

Provided that, in a case falling under clause (b) and on an application made by the appellant in this behalf, the 66[Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the] Commissioner (Appeals) may, for any good and sufficient reason to be recorded in writing, exempt him from the operation of the provisions of that clause.

C. AUTHORITIES

The authorities establish the liberal approach to condonation and the mandatory, jurisdictional character of the admitted-tax condition.

Cluster 1 — Condonation of delay: the liberal, justice-oriented test

Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji, (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)

Holding A liberal, justice-oriented approach must guide condonation: refusing to condone can defeat a meritorious cause, whereas condoning at most lets a cause be heard on merits. 'Every day's delay must be explained' does not mean a pedantic approach; substantial justice deserves preference over technical considerations.

Relevance The leading touchstone for condoning delay in admitting a first appeal under section 249(3).

N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123 (SC)

Holding Length of delay is no matter; acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Condonation is the rule where the explanation does not smack of mala fides or a dilatory strategy.

Relevance Supplements Katiji; routinely applied to belated tax appeals.

Cluster 2 — Sub-section (4): admitted-tax payment is mandatory

The High Courts have uniformly held clause (a) to be a condition precedent going to maintainability; the bar is, however, curable on subsequent payment.

Principle — section 249(4)(a) condition precedent

Position An appeal is not to be 'admitted' unless the tax due on the returned income is paid; an order disposing of an appeal filed in breach is a nullity, and a Tribunal hears no valid appeal where the first appeal was incompetent for non-payment. Payment made later cures the defect, the appeal becoming competent from the date of payment.

Caution Stated as the settled High Court position; the proviso to clause (b) (good and sufficient reasons) tempers hardship where no return was filed.

Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT, (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC)

Holding While the AO cannot entertain a non-return claim, the appellate authorities' powers are unaffected.

Relevance Confirms that, once an appeal is competently admitted under section 249, the appellate forum can entertain claims the AO could not — the maintainability hurdle of sub-section (4) being distinct from the scope of appellate power.