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

Bihari Distributors Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur vs. ITO, Ward-14(1), Kolkata.

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

ITA 1315/KOL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1315/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Bihari Distributors Pvt. Ltd…..…………............…...……………....Appellant H. No.240, Ambazari Layout, Nagpur, Maharashtra-440010. [Pan: Aadcb6286B] Vs. Ito, Ward-14(1), Kolkata….............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. Datta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 31, 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 13.10.2023 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. That The Order Passed U/S 250 Is Bad In Law As Well As On Facts Of The Case. 2. That The Hon'Ble Cit(A), Nfac Erred In Law As Well As On Facts Of The Case In Not Providing Reasonable Opportunity Of Hearing To The Appellant. 3. That The Hon'Ble Cit(A), Nfac Erred In Law As Well As On Facts Of The Case By Confirming The Addition Made By Ld. Assessing Officer In Respect Of Share Capital Received During The Year To The Tune Of

Section 250Section 68

Ranbhumi Nirman Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., NFAC, Delhi / I.T.O., Ward - 4(1), Kolkata

The appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 728/KOL/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. Nos.727&728/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Ranbhumi Nirman Pvt Ltd.………………............…...……………....Appellant Mercantile Building, 9/12, Lal Bazar Street, Block-B, 2Nd Floor, Room No.10, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aafcr6772E] Vs. Ito, Nfac, Delhi…………...............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Joydeep Chakrabotry, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 25, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 29, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 15.10.2022 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’). Since Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Appeals, Hence These Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. The Assessee’S Appeal Ita No.727/Kol/2022 Is Taken As The Lead Case For The Purpose Of Narration Of Facts. 2. Ita No.727/Kol/2022 – The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 148Section 234Section 250

Ranbhumi Nirman Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., NFAC, Delhi / I.T.O., Ward - 4(1), Kolkata

The appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 727/KOL/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. Nos.727&728/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Ranbhumi Nirman Pvt Ltd.………………............…...……………....Appellant Mercantile Building, 9/12, Lal Bazar Street, Block-B, 2Nd Floor, Room No.10, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aafcr6772E] Vs. Ito, Nfac, Delhi…………...............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Joydeep Chakrabotry, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 25, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 29, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 15.10.2022 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’). Since Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Appeals, Hence These Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. The Assessee’S Appeal Ita No.727/Kol/2022 Is Taken As The Lead Case For The Purpose Of Narration Of Facts. 2. Ita No.727/Kol/2022 – The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 148Section 234Section 250

Orange City Credit Co-Op. Society Ltd., Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(4), Nagpur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 19/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 019/Nag/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Orange City Credit Co-Op. Society Ltd. Anand Plaza-2, Hudkeshwar Road, Raja Peth Bus Stop, Nagpur-440034. Pan: Aaaao2933P . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S Income Tax Officer Ward-4(4), Nagpur. . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee By : None For The Assessee Revenue By : Mr Abhay Marathe [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 22/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 26/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; By This Appeal The Assessee Challenges The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1047262637(1) Dt. 14/11/2022 Of The National Faceless Appellate Centre [‘Nfac’ Hereinafter] For Assessment Year 2018-19 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Confirmed The Order Levying Penalty Passed U/S 270A Of The Act By The National Faceless Assessment Centre [‘Neac’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr Abhay Marathe [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 246A(1)(aa)Section 250Section 270ASection 274(1)

K Pukhraj Enterprises Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 4(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 4225/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailk.Pukhraj Enterprises Vs. Ito, Ward 4(2)(4) Private Limited, Aayakar Bhavan 44, 3Rd Floor, Shahi Gully 4Th Floor, Zaver Bazar, Kalbadevi Mumbai Maharasthra 400002 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadck5086A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Prateek Jain Respondent By : P.D. Chougule Date Of Hearing 22.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 25.04.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac For A.Y. 2010-11. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Passing An Ex Parte Order, Without Affording Adequate Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Appellant. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ld Ao In Issuing Notice Dated 31 03 2017 U/S 148 Of The Act & The Consequent Order Dated 22.12 2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Act Passed Is Bad In Law & Without Jurisdiction. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ld Ao In Making An Addition Of Rs.7,69,50,000/- Оп Account Of Share Premium Received On Increase In Paid-Up Share Capital, For The Reasons Mentioned In The Impugned Order Or Otherwise.

For Appellant: Prateek JainFor Respondent: P.D. Chougule
Section 143(3)Section 148