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

Indian Institute of Social Welfare and Business Management., Kolkata vs. ACIT, CPC, Bengaluru.

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

ITA 1103/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1103/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Indian Institute Of Social Welfare & Asst. Director Of Income Tax, Business Management Vs Centralized Processing Centre Management House 3, Madan Mohan Sen Street Kolkata - 700073 [Pan: Aaati3215M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. Bhattacharya, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/12/2023 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 National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Impugned Deserves To Be Set Aside & The Matter May Be Restored To The Ld. Cit(A) On The Ground That The Impugned Order Is Against The Rejection Of Application U/S 154 Of The Act. However, Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Assessee’S Appeal By Wrongly Observing That The Appeal Of The Assessee Raised In Similar Grounds Against The Order U/S 143(1)(A) Of The Act Already Stands Decided In Favour Of The Assessee And, Therefore, Appeal Against The Order U/S 154 Of The Act Becomes Infructuous.

For Appellant: Shri S. Bhattacharya, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250

M/S Sargam Metals Private, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 625/CHNY/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.Gआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 625/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Sargam Metals Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, No.7, Sipcot Industrial Park, Vs. Central Circle 1(1), Chellaperumbulimedeu, Chennai. Cheyar Taluk, Thiruvannamalai Dist. – 631 701. Pan: Aaacs 5092H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.12.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai In Ita No.96/Cit(A)-18/2021-22 Dated 20.03.2023. The Assessment Order Was Framed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2020-21 U/S.144 R.W.S. 145C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Vide Order Dated 30.09.2021. 2. Today When This Appeal Was Called For Hearing, It Was Brought To The Notice Of The Bench That The Assessee Has Filed Adjournment Petition. But Going Through The Facts Of The Case, We Noticed That This Case Can Be Decided Ex-Parte Qua Assessee. Hence, Appeal Was Taken Up For Hearing.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 144Section 250