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

Punctual Vincom (P)Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 983/KOL/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 982 & 983/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Punctual Vincom Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), 63, Radha Bazar Street Vs Kolkata 3Rd Floor, Room No. 10 Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aafcp7707H] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Archana Gupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: Both These Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Even Dt. 21/07/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012- 13. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Several Grounds Of Appeal In Both These Appeals By Way Of Revised Grounds Of Appeal 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 The File Of The Ld. Cit(A) For Fresh

For Appellant: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Archana Gupta, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 250

Punctual Vincom Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 982/KOL/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 982 & 983/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Punctual Vincom Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), 63, Radha Bazar Street Vs Kolkata 3Rd Floor, Room No. 10 Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aafcp7707H] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Archana Gupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: Both These Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Even Dt. 21/07/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012- 13. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Several Grounds Of Appeal In Both These Appeals By Way Of Revised Grounds Of Appeal 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 The File Of The Ld. Cit(A) For Fresh

For Appellant: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Archana Gupta, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 250

Punit Popat, Kolkata vs. Itb, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1359/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1359/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Punit Popat………………..….….…………............…...……………....Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata- 7000069. [Pan: Aflpp3320E] Vs. Ito, Nfac, Delhi……….…….............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pradip Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 08, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 29, 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 11.10.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1 For That The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Passing The Order Ex Parte Without Affording Reasonable Opportunity Of Hearing. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Denying The Deduction Claimed By The Assessee Of Rs. 4,38,673/- On Account Of Interest Of Housing Loan U/S 24(B) Of The Act.

Section 10(32)Section 24Section 250Section 57Section 80C

Sri Buddhadeb Samadder, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-29(3), Kolkata.

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

ITA 1356/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1356/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Sri Buddhadeb Samadder….….…………............…...……………....Appellant 49/1B, Tollygunge Road, Kalighat, Kolkata-700026. [Pan: Bpbps5750L] Vs. Ito, Ward-29(3), Kolkata…….............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Arya Das, Adv. & Anibarya Das, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pradip Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 08, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 29, 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 15.09.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1 For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The I.T. Act Dated 21.12.2018 By I.T.0 Ward 29(3)/ Kolkata & Subsequently Confirmed By The Ld. C.I.T (Appeal) Dated 15/09/2023 Are Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal. 2 For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Ld. A.O As Well As The Ld. Appellate Authority Was Wrong In Making Addition Of Rs. 55,81,590/- To The Income Of The Appellant Being One Of The Land-Owners Even Though

Section 143(3)Section 250