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

Ravindra Kumar Agarwal HUF, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-46(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 810/KOL/2023[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Dec 2023AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.810/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2001-02 Ravindra Kumar Agarwal Huf...................................................……Appellant 9/12, Block A, First Floor, Opp: Nacamichi Finance, Lal Bazar, Mercantile Building, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aaghr8925R] Vs. Ito, Ward-46(3), Kolkata..............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subhro Das, Addl. Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 26, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 14, 2023 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 06.06.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal, Apart From Challenging The Validity Of The Reopening Of The Assessment U/S 147 Of The Act, Has Also Taken The Legal Ground Relating To The Jurisdiction Of The Assessing Officer I.E. Ito, Ward-4(6(3), Kolkata. Apart From That The Assessee Has Contested The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Of Rs.47,34,280/- Treating The Said Amount As Undisclosed Income Of The Assessee.

Section 147Section 148Section 250

Kamarhatty Company Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Kolkata

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

ITA 317/KOL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Dec 2023AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.317/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Kamarhatty Company Ltd.……...................................................……Appellant 16A, Brabourne Road, 8Th Floor, Kolkata-1 [Pan: Aabck2916K] Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bengaluru...................................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kapil Mondal, Addl. Cit(Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 14, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 14, 2023 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 06.01.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Only Issue Raised By The Assessee In This Appeal Is Relating To The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Claim Of Deduction In Respect Of Employees Contribution Of Provident Fund & Esi. The Lower Authorities Have Disallowed The Said Claim Of Deduction For Late Deposits Of The Amount In The Relevant Fund.

Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

M/S. Css Projects Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I..T.O., Ward - 6(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 20/KOL/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Dec 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.20/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Css Projects Pvt. Ltd......…...................................................……Appellant Shantiniketan Building, 8, Camac Street, Room No.1011, Kolkata-700017. [Pan: Aaccc6067A] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata..............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 26, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 14 , 2023 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 22.11.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That The Appeal Is Time Barred. A Perusal Of The Record Shows That The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) Is Dated 22.11.2019, Whereas, The Appeal Has Been Filed In The Month Of January 2023. A Copy Of The Affidavit Of Shri Sanjay Kr. Jain, Director Of The Assessee Company Has Been Placed On File, Wherein, It Has Been Pleaded That None Of The Notices Of Hearing Issued By Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata

Section 142(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(viib)

Rahul Pandey, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-44(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 516/KOL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.516/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Rahul Pandey……………………...................................................……Appellant 224B, Apc Road, Ghari Wali Building, Shyam Bazar, Kolkata-700004. [Pan: Baapp1022N] Vs. Ito, Ward-44(1), Kolkata..............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Umakanta Dhrupati, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 19, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 14, 2023 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 22.10.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee, Inter Alia, Has Contested The Validity Of Reopening Of The Assessment Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 R.W.S 148 Of The Act. 3. The Assessee Contested The Reopening Of The Assessment On Two Grounds. Firstly That The Assessing Officer Did Not Record Valid Reasons For Forming Belief Regarding The Escapement Of The Income Of The

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250