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

Progressive Alloys(India) Pvt.Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 20(1), Delhi

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

ITA 3510/DEL/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaprogressive Alloys (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 20 (1), 307, Express Tower, N.S. Mandi, Delhi. North West Delhi, Delhi – 110 033. (Pan : Aagcp1584M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepanshu Singla, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Order : 12.07.2024 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 30.07.2023 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. That Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Impugned Order Dated 02.08.2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"), Generated Vide Din: Itbainfac/S/250/2023-24/054820030(1), Dismissing The Grounds Of Appeal & Determining The Total Income At Rs.8,53,03,474/- In Place Of Returned Income As Returned By The Assessee Is Bad In Law On Account Of Several Grounds & Assessee/Appellant Denies Its Liability To Be Assessed For Any Income Other Than The Income Already Returned By The Assessee & The Consequential Demand Of Rs.4,61,05,193/-.

For Appellant: Shri Deepanshu Singla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 147oSection 148Section 250

Manchaiah Shivalingaiah, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2)(5), Bengaluru

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

ITA 944/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeymanchaiah Shivalingaiah The Income Tax Officer No. 365/Ss, 1St Main, 2Nd Cross Ward - 1(2)(5) 3Rd Phase, Manjunath Nagar Vs. Bmtc Building, 80 Ft. Road Rajajinagar, Bengaluru 560010 Koramangala Pan – Bosps6014P Bengaluru 560095 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Likith Patel, M.K., Advocate Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Gahle, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 19.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi / Cit(A) Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1062552904(1) Dated 13.03.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. On The Fact & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Order Of The Assessing Officer, In The Manner In Which He Did. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Providing Sufficient Opportunity To The Appellant To Put Forth The Submissions Of The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri Likith Patel, M.K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gahle, Standing Counsel
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69

Ambereen Islam, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-40, Kolkata

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

ITA 262/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.262/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ambereen Islam….…………………..……………………....………....Appellant 71, Princep Street, Chandni Chawk, Kolkata – 700072. [Pan: Aakpi3448Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-40(1), Kolkata….................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 28, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 11, 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 02.11.2023 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 Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Levy/Confirmation Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Assessing Officer During The Assessment Proceedings Noted That The Assessee Had Raised A Claim Of Duty Draw Back To The Tune Of Rs.3,67,376/-, Whereas, The Assessee Had Disclosed A Sum Of Rs.69,525/- Under The Head ‘Duty Draw Back’. On Being Asked To Explain In This Respect, The Assessee Explained That The Balance Amount Of Rs.2,97,851/- Was Not Received During The Year. That The Amount Of

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)