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

Basil International Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - Xxii, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITSSA 44/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.(Ss).A 44/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Basil International Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 79A, P.C. Sorkar Sarani Vs Central Circle –Xxii, Kolkata 1St Floor Kolkata - 700019 [Pan: Aaccb0938K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/11/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata – 20, Dt. 29/12/2022, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. At The Outset, We Find That The Neither The Assessee Nor His Authorised Representative Has Appeared On The Date Of Hearing Of Its Appeal Fixed On 25/07/2023, 03/10/2023, 11/10/2023 & Today. Notices Have Been Sent Through Rpad As Well As E-Mails But To No Effect. The Appeal Is Also Time Barred By 25 Days But No Condonation Petition Has Been Placed On Record. Under These Circumstances, We Are Of The Opinion That Since There Is A Violation Of Section 253(3) Of The Act

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R
Section 250Section 253(3)

ACIT, C.C-2(1), Kolkata. vs. Shalimar Nutrients Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 550/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 550/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Shalimar Nutrients Private Limited Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata Vs 17Th Floor, Suite No. 17A, B & C Everest House 46/C, Chowringhee Road Middleton Street Kolkata - 700071 [Pan: Aapcs1419M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tulsyan, Fca Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/10/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata – 20, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015- 16. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 1 Day In Filing The Present Appeal By The Revenue. Petition For Condonation Of Delay Is Placed On Record Explaining The Reasons. On Perusing The Same, We Are Convinced That The Revenue Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing This Appeal In Time. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Admit The Appeal For Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

Debashis Banerjee, North 24 Parganaa vs. ITO, Ward - 22(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 216/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 216/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Debashis Banerjee Income Tax Officer, Ward - 22(1), 302, Surya Kiran Apartment Vs Kolkata U.D.P Road Baguiati West Bengal - 700059 [Pan: Ahrpb2019A] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/11/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata – 6, Dt. 14/01/2020, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. This Appeal Has A Checkered Past. Firstly The Appeal Was Time Barred By 1055 Days & Was Fixed For Hearing On 01/05/2023, On Which Date The Bench Considered The Condonation Petition & Was Of The Opinion That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing The Appeal In Time & Accordingly Condoned The Delay & Admitted The Appeal For Hearing. Shri D.K. Saha, C.A., Had Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Who Prayed That As The Ld. First Appellate Authority Had Passed An Ex-Parte Order, The Assessee May Be Granted The 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 250