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

Amc Fuels Limited., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-7(!), Kolkata.

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

ITA 739/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.737,738&739/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acm Fuels Ltd…………………...................................................……Appellant C/O Ca Vivek More, 30, Jadunath Dey Road, Anupam Tower, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700012. [Pan: Aaeca2685C] Vs. Ito, Ward-7(1), Kolkata..............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate & Sunil Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri B. K. Singh, Jcit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 12, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 12, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Even Date 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. Ita No.737/Kol/2023 Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Quantum Additions Confirmed By The Cit(A), Whereas, Ita No.738/Kol/2023 Has Been Preferred By The Assessee In Relation To Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Act Which Has Been Further Confirmed By The Cit(A) By The Impugned Order & Ita

Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

Acm Fuels Limited., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-7(1), Kolkata.

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

ITA 738/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.737,738&739/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acm Fuels Ltd…………………...................................................……Appellant C/O Ca Vivek More, 30, Jadunath Dey Road, Anupam Tower, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700012. [Pan: Aaeca2685C] Vs. Ito, Ward-7(1), Kolkata..............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate & Sunil Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri B. K. Singh, Jcit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 12, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 12, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Even Date 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. Ita No.737/Kol/2023 Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Quantum Additions Confirmed By The Cit(A), Whereas, Ita No.738/Kol/2023 Has Been Preferred By The Assessee In Relation To Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Act Which Has Been Further Confirmed By The Cit(A) By The Impugned Order & Ita

Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

Acm Fuels Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-7(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 737/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.737,738&739/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acm Fuels Ltd…………………...................................................……Appellant C/O Ca Vivek More, 30, Jadunath Dey Road, Anupam Tower, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700012. [Pan: Aaeca2685C] Vs. Ito, Ward-7(1), Kolkata..............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate & Sunil Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri B. K. Singh, Jcit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 12, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 12, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Even Date 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. Ita No.737/Kol/2023 Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Quantum Additions Confirmed By The Cit(A), Whereas, Ita No.738/Kol/2023 Has Been Preferred By The Assessee In Relation To Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Act Which Has Been Further Confirmed By The Cit(A) By The Impugned Order & Ita

Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

Hirawat Electricals Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-5(4), Kol, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 608/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A No.608/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Hirawat Electrical Pvt. Ltd..............................................................……Appellant 32, Ezra Street, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aacch1690Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-5(4), Kolkata.........................…...................……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri P. K. Singh, Fca & Gaurav Rathi, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Swapan Kr. Bera, Jcit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 22, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 12, 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 20.01.2023 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 Appeal Is Time Barred By 89 Days. A Separate Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed. It Has Been Pleaded In The Said Application That The Appeal Was Electronically Filed Within The Limitation Period, However, Due To Inadvertence/Miscommunication The Appeal Papers Were Submitted By The Concerned Clerk After The Limitation Period.

Section 144Section 250Section 68

Umang Commo Trade Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-2(4) Presently I.T.O., Ward-1(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 16/KOL/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Dec 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.16/Kol/2023 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Umang Commo Trade Pvt. Ltd.............................…...……………....Appellant 2Nd Floor, Room No.2B, 56, Metacalfe Street, Bowbazar, Kolkata-700013. [Pan: Aaacu3317M] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(4) Presently Ito, Ward-1(3), Kolkata............…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Rites Goel, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri B. K. Singh, Jcit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 06, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 12, 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 18.01.2017 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, 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 Appeal Is Time Barred By 2122 Days. A Separate Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed, Wherein, It Has Been Pleaded That The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) Was Never Served Upon The Assessee. Though, The Order Was Uploaded On The Website Portal Of The Income Tax Department, However, The Assessee Was Not Aware Of The Same. It Has Been Submitted That The Assessee Came To Know About The Passing

Section 250Section 68