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

Raju Adhikary, Howrah vs. ITO, WD.-46(1), Kolkata.

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

ITA 746/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata14 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.746/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Raju Adhikary………………..….…………............…...……………....Appellant Kandua, Sankrail Sankrail Howrah, W.B – 711302. [Pan: Afbpa4648C] Vs. Ito, Ward-46(1), Kolkata……...............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Umakant Dhrupati, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 14, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 14, 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 29.05.2023 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. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Invited Our Attention To The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) To Submit That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee For Want Of Prosecution. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Not Discussed The Case On Merits. The Ld. Counsel Has Further Submitted That In Fact The Assessee Has Duly Uploaded Written Submissions On The Income Tax Portal, However, The Ld. Cit(A) Failed To Consider The Written Submissions Filed By The Assessee & Wrongly Dismissed The Appeal For Want Of Prosecution. The

Section 250

AM vs. Constructions Private Limited., Kolkatavs.NFAC, Delhi/ ITO, Ward-4(3), Kolkata.

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

ITA 1203/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata14 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1203/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Amvs Constructions Pvt Ltd.….…………............…...……………....Appellant P 243, Block A, Lake Town, North 24 Parganas, Kolkata-700089. [Pan: Aakca4899G] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(3), Kolkata……...............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Smt. Vijeta Untiwalia Agarwal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Umakant Dhrupati, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 14, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 14, 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 02.08.2022 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’). 2. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee In This Appeal Is Relating To The Non-Allowance Of Tds Credit Of Rs.5,96,800/-. 3. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Income Relating To The Aforesaid Tds Credits Had Accrued To The Assessee In The Preceding Assessment Year Which Was Offered For Taxation. However, The Tax Deducted By The Deductor Thereupon, Was Not Deposited By Him With The Department & The Same Was Not Appearing In Form 26As Relating To The Preceding Year, Therefore, The Same Was Not Claimed In The

Section 250

Orris Trade Link Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 720/KOL/2022[2014-2015]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata14 Mar 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.720/Kol/2022 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Orris Trade Link Pvt Ltd…..….…………............…...……………....Appellant Shop No.B-7-In,C-197, Greater Kailash, Part-I, South Delhi-110048. [Pan: Aaaco8097N] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Kolkata……...............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Umakant Dhrupati, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 14, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 14, 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 16.11.2022 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’). 2. No One Has Put In Appearance On Behalf Of The Assessee Despite Notices Issued On Different Dates & Even Efforts Were Also Made To Inform The Assessee Telephonically. Under The Circumstances, We Proceed To Adjudicate The Present Appeal After Hearing The Ld. Dr. 3. The Ld. Dr Has Brought Our Attention To The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) To Submit That In This Case, There Were Two Issues Involved Before

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68