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

Flex Trade Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cen Cir. 4(4), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 229/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 228 & 229/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Flex Trade Private Limited Acit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata Room No. 205 Vs 13, B.B. Ganguly Street Kolkata - 700012 [Pan : Aaacf6723A] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Arun Kanti Dutta, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Kolkata – 27, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Even Dt. 08/12/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Several Grounds Of Appeal In Both These Appeals But The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee, Before Us Submitted That The Orders Of The Ld. First Appellate Authority Passed In Both These Appeals Are Ex-Parte & Assessee Was Not Afforded Reasonable Opportunity Of Hearing. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Not Disposed Off The Appeals On Merits & If It Had Been So, The Assessee Stood A Fair Chance In Succeeding. Therefore, He Prayed That Both The Appeals Be Restored To 2

For Appellant: Shri Amit Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Dutta, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 250

Flex Trade Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cen. Cir. 4(4), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 228/KOL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 228 & 229/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Flex Trade Private Limited Acit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata Room No. 205 Vs 13, B.B. Ganguly Street Kolkata - 700012 [Pan : Aaacf6723A] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Arun Kanti Dutta, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Kolkata – 27, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Even Dt. 08/12/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Several Grounds Of Appeal In Both These Appeals But The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee, Before Us Submitted That The Orders Of The Ld. First Appellate Authority Passed In Both These Appeals Are Ex-Parte & Assessee Was Not Afforded Reasonable Opportunity Of Hearing. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Not Disposed Off The Appeals On Merits & If It Had Been So, The Assessee Stood A Fair Chance In Succeeding. Therefore, He Prayed That Both The Appeals Be Restored To 2

For Appellant: Shri Amit Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Dutta, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 250

M/S Jayant Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-7(4), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 21/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 21/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Jayant Tradelink Private Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 7(4), C/O. M/S. Salarpuria Jajodia & Co. Vs Kolkata 7, C.R. Avenue 3Rd Floor Kolkata - 700072 [Pan : Aaacj6483H] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, Fca Revenue By : Shri Nicholash Murud, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 19/12/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Several Grounds Of Appeal, But Its Sole Grievance Is In Respect Of The Disallowance Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) Amounting To Rs.27,59,132/- Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 14A Of The Act. 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That No Exempt Income Was Earned During The Year And, Therefore, In View

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Nicholash Murud, Addl. CIT, D/R
Section 14ASection 250

Palsons Derma Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 198/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 198/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Palsons Derma Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 10/D/1, Ho-Chi-Minh Sarani Vs Circle – 11(1), Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaecp5629D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca Revenue By : Shri Archana Gupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter The “Ld. First Appellate Authority”) Dt. 26/12/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Grievance Raised In Ground No. 1 Is That The Ld. First Appellate Authority Erred In Not Condoning The Delay Of 675 Days In Filing Of The Appeal & Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal As Non-Maintainable. 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Delay As Arisen Because After Receiving Intimation U/S 143(1)(A) Of The Act, Rectification Filed U/S 154 Of The Act Was Rejected & In The Meantime, Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dealing With The Issues Arising Out Of The Intimation

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Archana Gupta, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

Sri. Biswajit Bera, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-27(3), Haldia

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

ITA 1134/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1134/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sri Biswajit Bera Income Tax Officer, Ward – 27(3), C/O. M/S. Salarpuria Jajodia & Co. Vs Haldia 7, C.R. Avenue 3Rd Floor Kolkata - 700072 [Pan : Blwpb4251N] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, Fca Revenue By : Shri Monalisha Pal Mukherjee, Jcit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 21/03/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 152 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. We Find That The Assessee Has Placed An Affidavit Dated 19/01/2024, Stating Therein The Reasons For The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Before This Tribunal With A Prayer To Condone The Delay. The Reasons Stated In The Affidavit Are Reproduced Below:- “4. That The Said Delay Of 151 Days In Filing The Appeal By The Appellant Before The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata, Is Not Intentional But The Said Delay Is Due To The Following Reasons & Circumstances: -

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Monalisha Pal Mukherjee, JCIT, D/R
Section 250