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

A.C.I.T., Circle-11(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Swarup Enclave Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1868/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1868/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Circle-11(2), Kolkata………..…......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Swarup Enclave Pvt. Ltd.................................................…..…..... Respondent 11F, East Topsia Road, Kolkata-700046. [Pan: Aajcs0925L] Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri B. K. Singh, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 02, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 09.04.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. An Application Dated 29.01.2024 Has Been Moved By The Assessee To Submit That The Assessee Has Availed The Benefit Of Vivad Se Viswas Scheme 2020 & Paid The Due Taxes Under The Scheme, Hence, The Appeal Of The Revenue May Be Dismissed Having Become Infructuous. 3. The Ld. Dr Has Fairly Submitted That The Assessee Having Availed The Benefit Of Vivad Se Viswas Scheme, The Appeal Of The Revenue, At

Section 250

Uday Autolink Private Limited, Galaxycomplex, Naroda, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Pratyakshakar Bhawan, L Colony, Ambawadi

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 935/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 935/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Uday Autolink Private Dcit बनाम/ Limited Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad Vs. F-14, Galaxy Complex, Opp. Galaxy Cinema, Naroda, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcu3260E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Parin S Shah, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sushil Kumr Katiar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 31/01/2024 O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.09.2023 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Under Section 250 Of The Act For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Rejected The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Since The Appeal Was Barred By Limitation For 25 Days. Before Us, The Application For Condonation Of Delay Was Also Filed Which Was Also Filed Before The Ld. Cit(A). Upon Perusal Of The Same, We

For Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumr Katiar, Sr. DR
Section 250

Mani Munjal, Bidhan Nagar vs. ITO-1(2), Durgapur

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

ITA 606/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.606/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mani Munjal……………..…..…..…......................…...……………....Appellant B-110, Sargam Sarani, Sector-2C, Bidhan Nagar, W.B – 713212. [Pan: Azkpm0635J] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(2), Durgapur………………..............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subro Das, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 31, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 31, 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 28.06.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 11, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed 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. Instead Of Taking Peak Balance Of Undisclosed Bank Account Whole Of The Deposits Made During The Year Has Been Added As Income. Hence Appeal. Your Honor Requested To Consider The Peak Balance Theory & Provide The Necessary Relief.”

Section 250

M/S. Ramesh Chandra Parekh., Kolkata vs. ITO, Delhi, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1259/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1259/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 M/S Ramesh Chandra Parekh…..…......................…...……………....Appellant City Centre, 19, Synagogue Street, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aadfr2844L] Vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri J. M. Thard, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Amuldeep Kaur, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 31, 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 05.10.2023 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. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S 271Da Of The Act On Account Of Violation Of Provisions Of Section 269St For Accepting Cash Payment More Than The Prescribed Limit Of Rs.2,00,000/- In An Aggregate From A Person In Respect Of A Single Transaction. 3. The Ld. Counsel, At The Outset, Has Submitted That The Aforesaid Violation Of Provisions Of Section 269St Was Not Intentional, Rather, The

Section 250Section 269SSection 271D

M/S. Vishal Victory Metal Engg. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward- 12(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 688/KOL/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Judical Member & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos.684 To 688/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2012-13 & 2014-16 M/S Vishal Victory Metal Engg. Pvt. Ltd..................................................Appellant 2 G Nilamber Building, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata – 700017. [Pan:Aabcv0849E] Vs. Ito, Ward-12(1), Kolkata.........................................................................Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anuj Mussadi, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rakesh Kr. Das, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 16, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 31, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Bench: The Captioned Are Bunch Of Five Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 11.08.22 & 21.11.22 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’) Respectively. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Invited Our Attention To The Impugned Orders Of The Cit(A) In All The Appeals To Submit That The Ld. Cit(A) Had Decided All The Appeals Ex Parte Of The Assessee For Want Of Prosecution. In None Of The Appeals, The Order Has Been Passed On Merits. The Ld. Counsel Has Further Submitted That

Section 250

Vishal Victory Metal Engg. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 12(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 687/KOL/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Judical Member & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos.684 To 688/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2012-13 & 2014-16 M/S Vishal Victory Metal Engg. Pvt. Ltd..................................................Appellant 2 G Nilamber Building, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata – 700017. [Pan:Aabcv0849E] Vs. Ito, Ward-12(1), Kolkata.........................................................................Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anuj Mussadi, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rakesh Kr. Das, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 16, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 31, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Bench: The Captioned Are Bunch Of Five Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 11.08.22 & 21.11.22 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’) Respectively. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Invited Our Attention To The Impugned Orders Of The Cit(A) In All The Appeals To Submit That The Ld. Cit(A) Had Decided All The Appeals Ex Parte Of The Assessee For Want Of Prosecution. In None Of The Appeals, The Order Has Been Passed On Merits. The Ld. Counsel Has Further Submitted That

Section 250