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

The Institute of Indian Foundrymen, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Exempt, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 979/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.979/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Institute Of Indian Foundrymen…................…...……………....Appellant Iif Centre, 335 Rajdanga Main Road, Kolkata – 700107. [Pan:Aaatt6606M] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Kolkata…...…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Raja Sengupta, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 22, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 26, 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 07.08.2023 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. 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 Assessee Before The Ld. Cit(A) Had Taken Legal Ground Relating To The Validity Of The Reopening Of The Assessment & Also Contested The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer On Merits. The Ld. Counsel Has Invited Our Attention To Para 5 Page 7 Of The Impugned Order From Where The Discussion On The Legal Ground Taken By The Assessee Relating To The Validity Of The Reopening Of The Assessment Commences & The

Section 147Section 250

M/S Kalyani Barter Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-2(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 414/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.414/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 Vs. Kalyani Barter Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle-2(1), Kolkata 2, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, 2Nd Floor, Room No. 5, Kolkata-700013. (Pan: Aacck7579D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri S. Dutta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 20.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.02.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-1, Kolkata [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 22.01.2019 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Ld. Dcit, Circle-2(1), Kolkata. 2. Assessee Has Effectively Raised Four Grounds Of Which Two Relate To Addition U/S. 68 Of The Act On Account Of Unexplained Share Capital & Unsecured Loan, One Relates To Disallowance U/S. 14A Of The Act & Through Ground No. 4 It Has Claimed That The Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A) U/S. 250 Of The Act Is Not Correct Confirming The Arbitrary Disallowances/Additions.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68