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

Sandeep Kr. Saha, [Legal Heir of Assessee Viz.Puja Shah, (Since Deceased)], Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-50(4), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 735/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 735/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sandeep Kumar Shah Income Tax Officer, Ward – {Legal Heir Of Assessee Viz. Puja Shah (Since Deceased)} Vs 50(4), Kolkata P-281, Cit Road Scheme-Vi(M), Kankurgachi Kolkata - 700054 [Pan : Aqeps5462N] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, Fca/Amit Agrawal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ankur Goyal, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/10/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/11/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 15, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 27/11/2019, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 1269 Days In Filing Of The Appeal By The Assessee. An Affidavit Along With An Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed & Perusal Of The Same Indicates That The Assessee, Namely, Puja Shah Expired On 04/01/2015 & The Said Information Was Passed On To The Assessing Officer During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings. The Assessment Order Was Framed On 22/12/2017. Thereafter Appeal Of The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, FCA/Amit AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ankur Goyal, Addl. CIT, D/R
Section 147Section 250

Subarna Mallick, Burdwan vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Durgapur, Kolkata

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

ITA 633/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.633/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Subarna Mallick..........................................................................……Appellant 42, Rani Rashmoni Path, City Centre, Durgapur, Burdwan – 713216. [Pan: Athpm9445K] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), Durgapur.............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Promit Majumdar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 30, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 30, 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 04.05.2023 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 Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1) Addition Of Rs. 37,00,758 U/S 69- That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Not Considering The Fact & Submissions Made On Behalf Of The Assessee & Allowed The Order Passed By The Learned Assessment Officer Without Appreciating The Fact That The Investments Made Was A Mere Re-Investment Of Fund, Where The Investment Added U/S 69 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred

Section 250Section 39Section 69

M?S. Khr Hospitality India Ltd., Kolkata vs. NFAC, New Delhi, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 323/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 323/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 M/S. Khr Hospitality India Ltd. Commissioner Of Income-Tax 1&2, Little Russel Street Vs (Appeals)/ Income Tax Kolkata - 700071 Department/Cpc Bengaluru/Assistant Director Of [Pan: Aegpb5753B] Income Tax अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kumar Bandhopadhyay, Staff Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/11/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/11/2023 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 National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 21/02/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee For Reduced Rate Of Tax Provided U/S 115Bba Of Act For Non-Submission Of Form No. 10-Ic As A Result Of Which, Income Of The Assessee Has Been Taxed @ 30% Instead Of @ 22%. 3. At The Time Of Hearing, Application Has Been Filed By The Assessee Which States For Non-Submission Of Form 10-Ic, Assessee Was Denied The Claim Of Reduced Rate Of Tax Provided U/S 115Bba Of The Act. It Is Also Stated That After Filing Of The Appeal Before This Tribunal, The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri Kumar Bandhopadhyay, StaffFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 115BSection 250

ITO, Ward-4(1), Kol, Kolkata vs. M/S. Trimurti Grihanirman Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 660/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.660/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ito, Ward-4(1), Kolkata.………………………..........................……....Appellant Vs. M/S Trimurti Grihanirman Pvt. Ltd......................................…..…..... Respondent 1 Orbit, Garstin Place, Dalhousie, Kolkata-1 [Pan: Aadct0482H] Appearances By: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ramesh Kumar Patodia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 29, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 29, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यकसद"य"वारा/ Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 10.03.2023 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 Only Issue Raised In This Appeal By The Department Is Whether The Assessee Is Entitled To The Claim Of Loss Of The Amalgamated Company. 3. The Assessing Officer Rejected The Claimed On The Ground That After Amalgamation The Assessee Was Supposed To File A Revised Return Claiming The Said Losses Of The Amalgamated Company.

Section 250

R.C. Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 64/KOL/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.64/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 R. C. Suppliers Pvt. Ltd………...................................................……Appellant 161/1, M.G. Road, Kolkata – 700007. [Pan: Aabcr2904A] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1) Kolkata.............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 14, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 29, 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 01.12.2022 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 Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Erred In Passing Ex-Parte Order Dated 1St December, 2022 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In The Case Of Appellant Assessee Company For The Assessment Year 2014-15 In Violations Of The Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. That, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Erred In Confirming The Arbitrary

Section 250