An appeal against an assessment order lies to the Commissioner (Appeals) in Form 35, and must be filed within thirty days of service of the notice of demand under Section 249(2) — not thirty days from the date printed on the order. That single distinction accounts for more defective appeals than any other error in the process.
When the clock starts
Section 249(2) fixes the period at thirty days from the date of service of the notice of demand. An order dated the tenth of a month may not be served until the twenty-fifth, and the appeal period runs from the later date. Take the date from the acknowledgement of service or the portal timestamp rather than from the face of the order, and record it on the file the day the order is received.
Limitation here is jurisdictional rather than procedural. An appeal filed even one day late is not merely irregular — it cannot be admitted at all unless the delay is first condoned.
The condition most appeals stumble on
Section 249(4) provides that no appeal shall be admitted unless the tax due on the income returned has been paid. This is entirely separate from the disputed demand and from any stay application. It concerns the liability the assessee has themselves admitted in the return. Where no return was filed, an amount equal to the advance tax payable must have been paid instead.
The practical consequence is that an assessee who has filed a return showing tax payable, not paid it, and then received an addition on assessment cannot appeal the addition until the admitted tax is cleared. Check this before anything else.
What it costs
The fee under Section 249(1) turns on assessed total income, not on the amount in dispute: Rs.250 where assessed total income is up to Rs.1,00,000, Rs.500 between Rs.1,00,001 and Rs.2,00,000, and Rs.1,000 above that. Where the subject matter of the appeal is not covered by those clauses, the fee is Rs.250.
Drafting grounds that get engaged with
Grounds of appeal are not a summary of grievance; they are the frame within which the Commissioner is required to decide. Three habits improve outcomes materially.
First, separate each distinct addition into its own ground. A composite ground attacking the order generally invites a composite dismissal. Second, plead the legal proposition and the factual basis separately, so that a finding on one does not dispose of the other. Third, include a ground on jurisdiction or limitation wherever it is genuinely available — these are often the strongest points and are routinely omitted because they feel technical.
The statement of facts should be a narrative that a reader unfamiliar with the file can follow. It is read before the grounds, and it sets the frame.
Additional evidence
Rule 46A restricts the admission of evidence that was not produced before the Assessing Officer. Where the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from producing it, or was not given adequate opportunity, an application under Rule 46A should accompany the appeal and should explain specifically why the evidence was not filed earlier. A bare assertion will not carry it.
Faceless appeals
First appeals are now largely conducted through the faceless mechanism, which changes the texture of the process considerably. There is no oral hearing as of right in the traditional sense, submissions are made in writing through the portal, and the quality of the written submission carries proportionately more weight. Requests for personal hearing through video conferencing should be made explicitly rather than assumed.
If the appeal fails
A further appeal lies to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in Form 36 within sixty days of communication of the order. Before going there, consider whether the addition is one where Section 270AA immunity was, or still is, a better route — it extinguishes penalty exposure entirely, at the price of giving up appeal rights.
This guide is general in nature. Limitation and admission requirements turn on the facts of the particular order, and advice should be taken before filing.