Section 250 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.359

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 359 (Procedure in appeal) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 359 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 250 is Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471), cited in 3,926 of the 26,976 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 250

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji
167 ITR 471 · 1987 · Supreme Court
3,926
citing judgments

Delay in filing appeals, when supported by sufficient or justifiable cause, should be condoned with a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice. This principle prioritizes the cause of justice over mere technicalities.

CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd.
88 ITR 192 · 1973 · Supreme Court
2,664
citing judgments

When two equally plausible interpretations of a taxing provision are possible, or when conflicting views exist from non-jurisdictional High Courts, the interpretation that favors the assessee must be adopted.

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory
359 ITR 565 · 2013 · High Court
2,590
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.
38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
2,267
citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.
322 ITR 158 · 2010 · Supreme Court
2,228
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income is not automatically leviable if the assessee has made a full disclosure of all particulars and the addition or disallowance arises from a difference of opinion.

Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT
223 ITR 480 · 1997 · High Court
2,040
citing judgments

A court or tribunal is not bound to answer a reference or adjudicate an appeal on its merits if the party at whose instance the proceeding is made fails to appear at the hearing or take necessary steps for its proper conduct.

Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT
284 ITR 323 · 2006 · Supreme Court
1,842
citing judgments

An assessee cannot raise a new claim or a claim not made in the original or revised return of income for the first time directly before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings.

Fatehraj Singhvi v. UOI
73 Taxmann.com 252 · 2016 · High Court
1,778
citing judgments

Late fees under section 234E are not applicable for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the amendment to section 200A inserting clause (c) was effective from that date.

Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT
193 ITR 321 · 1992 · Supreme Court
1,695
citing judgments

The principle of consistency applies in tax matters, meaning a fundamental aspect found to be true in one assessment year should not be changed in a subsequent year if the order was not challenged.

CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another
118 ITR 461 · 1997 · Supreme Court
1,656
citing judgments

Appealing a tax assessment requires more than just filing the appeal; it involves actively pursuing it. The assessee must effectively engage with the appellate process.

Judgments on Section 250

Bisseswarlal Mannalal & Sons., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-33, Kolkata.

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

ITA 1136/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1136/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Bisseswarlal Mannalal & Sons...................………………....Appellant 12, Pretoria Street, 5Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 071. [Pan: Aacfb7736L] Vs. Acit, Circle-33, Kolkata.……………….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sailen Samaddar, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 06, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 04, 2024 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 31.08.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Under Mistaken Belief That The Assessee Has Availed Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 & He Treated The Appeal Has Deemed To Be Withdrawn As Per Clause 2 Of Section 4 Of The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. However, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Assessee Had Availed Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme In Respect Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 10.03.14. Thereafter, The Assessment Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Act By Issuing Notice U/S 148 Of The Act 23.03.16. The Ld. Counsel Has Submitted That The Assessee

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 4

M/S Intent Infraprojects Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 7(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 38/KOL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.38/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Intent Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd.….............………....……………....Appellant 4/8, Chinar Park Athghora, 24 Parganas South, Kolkata – 700157. [Pan: Aacci8387B] Vs. Ito, Ward-7(3), Kolkata.…………....................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. Jhajharia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 08, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 04, 2024 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 25.04.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Earlier, The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed Being Barred By Limitation By 927 Days Vide Order Dated 24.01.2023 Of The Tribunal. The Assessee Preferred Appeal Before The Hon’Ble High Court Against The Aforesaid Dismissal, However, The Hon’Ble High Court Vide Order Dated 22.01.2024 Passed In Itat/2011/2023 Allowed The Appeal & Condoned The Delay In Filing The Appeal Before This Tribunal Subject To The Conditions That The Appellant/Assessee Would Pay A Sum Of Rs.5 Lakhs To The West Bengal Legal Services Authority. Thereafter, The

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250