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

Photon Kathaas Production Private Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, TDS Ward 1(1), Chennai

In the result, both these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 512/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.511 & 512/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2016-2017 & 2017-2018) Photon Kathaas Production Private Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.19, Avenue Road, Tds, Ward 1(1) Nungambakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aafcp 2805A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Raghav Menon, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl.Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () These Two Appeals Being Ita Nos.511-512/Chny/2024 Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of Even Date 29.12.2023 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘Cit(A)’ In Short], Chennai-20 For The Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Common Grounds Of Appeal In Both The Assessment Years, Therefore, For The Sake Of Brevity Grounds Of Appeal Filed In Ita No.511/Chny/2024 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Being Taken As Lead Case & Our Order Thereon Will Mutatis Mutandis Apply To Appeal For Ay 2017-18 Accordingly. Grounds Of Appeal Filed In Ita No.511-512/Chny/2024 Are Reproduced As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri. Raghav Menon, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl.CIT
Section 133Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

Photon Kathaas Production Private Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, TDS Ward 1-(1), Chennai

In the result, both these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 511/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.511 & 512/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2016-2017 & 2017-2018) Photon Kathaas Production Private Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.19, Avenue Road, Tds, Ward 1(1) Nungambakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aafcp 2805A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Raghav Menon, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl.Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () These Two Appeals Being Ita Nos.511-512/Chny/2024 Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of Even Date 29.12.2023 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘Cit(A)’ In Short], Chennai-20 For The Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Common Grounds Of Appeal In Both The Assessment Years, Therefore, For The Sake Of Brevity Grounds Of Appeal Filed In Ita No.511/Chny/2024 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Being Taken As Lead Case & Our Order Thereon Will Mutatis Mutandis Apply To Appeal For Ay 2017-18 Accordingly. Grounds Of Appeal Filed In Ita No.511-512/Chny/2024 Are Reproduced As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri. Raghav Menon, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl.CIT
Section 133Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

Shri. Lakshmi Pattina Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha, Harihar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Davangere

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 721/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyshri Lakshmi Pattina Sahakara The Income Tax Officer Sangha Niyamitha Ward 1 Near Renuka Mandira Temple Vs. Devangere. Harihar – 577 601. Pan – Aapas0548F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri.Sandeep Chalapathy, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 13.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Vide Din & Order No. Itba/ Nfac/S/ 250/2022-23/ 1044443368(1) Dated 03.08.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Cit(A)) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-2018. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. That The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) In So Far It Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Appellant Is Bad & Erroneous In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. That The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Deciding The Appeal Ex-Parte Without Providing A 2 Shri Lakshmi Pattina Sahakara Sangh Proper Opportunity Of Being Heard By Sending The Appeal Hearing Communication Manually As Part Of Principles Of Natural Justice. 3. That The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Ought To Have Considered The Fact That The Entire Appeal Faceless Scheme Is Newly Introduced & Not All The Assessees Are Well Aware Of It & Can Acknowledge The Hearing Notices Sent Through Emails.

For Appellant: Sri.Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel
Section 115BSection 250Section 68

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Hickson Dadajee Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2052/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am Income Tax Officer Hickson Dadajee Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 570, Aayakar Mazannine Floor, Bhawan, Mamasaheb Varerkar Bridge, Vs. Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Grant Road, S.O., Mumbai-400 007 Pan/Gir No. Aaach 0986 M (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vipul J. Shah Respondent By : Shri P. D. Chougule Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2024 O R D E R Per Amit Shukla, J M: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 20.02.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) & Proceedings U/S. 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act') For The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2013-14. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Reads As Under: 1. "Whether In Facts & Circumstances Of The Ease & In Law, The Ld Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding The Order Passed By Ao U/S 154 Rs 250 Dated 31.03.2021 As "Bad In Law Without Appreciating The Fact That Earlier Order Was Inadvertently Passed Only "U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act & The Second Order Was Passed U/S 250 Rs 154 Of The It Act" To Correct These Bonafide Mistake Occurred & Hence The Same Is Covered By The Provisions Of Section 292 B Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Vipul J. ShahFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 292