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

Lakhotia Diagonstic Service Pvt. Ltd., Howrah vs. ACIT, CC-3(2), Kolkata.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITSSA 165/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.(Ss)A. Nos.164&165/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Lakhotia Diagnostic Service Pvt. Ltd.....................…...……………....Appellant 93/C/A Block-E Vivek Bihar, G T Road (South), Shibpur, Howrah, W.B – 711102. [Pan: Aaaco6522G] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-3(2), Kolkata.………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Rakesh Kr. Das, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 05, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 31, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Two Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For Different Assessment Years Against The Separate Orders Dated 08.08.2023 & 09.08.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 21, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Appeals, Therefore, Both The Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. Assessee’S Appeal In It(Ss)A No.164/Kol/2023 Is Taken As Lead Case For Narration Of Facts. It(Ss)A No.164/Kol/2023 – The Assessee In This Appeal Has 2. Taken The Following Ground Of Appeal:

Section 250Section 269SSection 271D

Lakhotia Diagnostic Service Private Limited., Howrah vs. ACIT, CC-3(2), Kolkata.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITSSA 164/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.(Ss)A. Nos.164&165/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Lakhotia Diagnostic Service Pvt. Ltd.....................…...……………....Appellant 93/C/A Block-E Vivek Bihar, G T Road (South), Shibpur, Howrah, W.B – 711102. [Pan: Aaaco6522G] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-3(2), Kolkata.………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Rakesh Kr. Das, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 05, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 31, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Two Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For Different Assessment Years Against The Separate Orders Dated 08.08.2023 & 09.08.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 21, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Appeals, Therefore, Both The Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. Assessee’S Appeal In It(Ss)A No.164/Kol/2023 Is Taken As Lead Case For Narration Of Facts. It(Ss)A No.164/Kol/2023 – The Assessee In This Appeal Has 2. Taken The Following Ground Of Appeal:

Section 250Section 269SSection 271D

Shreem Electric Limited, Kolhapur vs. ACIT Central Circle, Kolhapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 898/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.898/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2017-18 Shreem Electric Limited, V The Assistant Plot No.43 To 46, S Commissioner Of Income L.K.Akiwate Industrial Tax, Estate, Jaysingpur, Shirol, Central Circle, Kolhapur. Kolhapur – 416144. Pan: Aaccs4893C Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak -Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 31/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Pune-11Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, Dated 31.01.2024 For The A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Penalty Under Section 270A Of Rs.3,01,124/-. Shreem Electric Limited, Kolhapur[A] 2. The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That, Since The Addition Is Made On Adhoc Basis, No Penalty Can Be Levied. 3. The Penalty Levied May Please Be Delete. 4. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Amend Or Delete Any Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal.” 2. There Is A Delay Of Two Months Of Filing Appeal Before This Tribunal. Considering The Reasons Mentioned In The Affidavit, We Are Convinced With The Reasons For Delay & In The Larger Interest Of Justice, We Condone The Delay.

Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(6)