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

DCIT, Central Circle - 4(4), Kolkata vs. Aryav Securities Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 789/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.789/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata …….……...........................……Appellant Vs. Aryav Securities Pvt. Ltd........…………………........……...…..…..Respondent 18, Unit-104, British Indian Street, Kolkata-700069. [Pan: Aaica8339D] Appearances By: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 14, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 28, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 31.05.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, 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 Revenue In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts Of The Case Is Restricted The Addition (Undisclosed Commission Income @2%) To 0.1% Of The Total Turnover (Both Of Buy & Sell). Rest Of The Addition Has Been Deleted By The Ld. Cit(A) Based On The Statement Of Mr. Aurn Shah, Director Of Aryav Securities Pvt. Ltd. At The Time Of Appellate Stage. Whereas, In This Case Addition Had

Section 250

Pradeep Kumar Garg and Sons (HUF), Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-37(3), Kol., Kolkata

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

ITA 726/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.726/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Pradeep Kumar Garg & Sons (Huf) .........................................……Appellant 36A, Sahitya Parisad Street, Kolkata-700006. [Pan: Aadhp1723J] Vs. Ito, Ward-37(3), Kolkata..............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Amit Agarwal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Jitendra Kantilal Surti, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 06, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 28, 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 27.05.2023 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 Agitated The Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.42,52,750/- Made By The Assessing Officer Taking The Long-Term Capital Gain As Undisclosed Income Of The Assessee U/S 68 Of The Act. 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Invited Our Attention To The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) To Submit That The Same Is

Section 250Section 68

Anil Kumar Jain, Kolkata vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 262/KOL/2023[F.Y.2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A No.262/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anil Kumar Jain.......................................................................……Appellant 294A, B.B. Ganguly Street, Bowbazar, Kolkata-700012. [Pan: Acspj9843Q] Vs. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi.............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Alok Kumar Ghosh, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Madhumita Das, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 20, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 28, 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 19.01.2023 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 Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Appellate Authority Erred In Law & Facts, In Dismissing The Appeal Which Has Caused Substantial Denial Of Natural Justice. 2. For That The Ld. Appellate Authority & The Learned Assessing Authority Erred In Law & On Facts In Making An Arbitrary Addition U/S 69A Of The Income Tax Act 1961, For An Amount Of Rs. 22731055.00 Which

Section 144Section 250Section 69A