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

Ravi Khaitan, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-7(1), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 713/KOL/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2023AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.713/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2022-23 Ravi Khaitan.............................………..........................……………....Appellant 10/D/2, Ho Chi Minh Sarani, Kolkata- 700071. [Pan: Agbpk2281N] Vs. Dcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata.......…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri K. K. Khemka, 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 : August 30, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 21, 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 10.07.2023 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 Assessee In This Appeal Has Contested The Action Of The Cpc In Not Giving Credit Of Tcs Deducted Of Rs.1,101,759/- & Rs.1,48,456/- Deducted By Banks & Duly Appeared In Form 26As. 3. The Ld. Cit(A) In The Impugned Order Has Noted The Facts As Under: “The Assessee Filed Income Tax Return On 29.09.2022 At Total Income Of Rs.94,32,160/- & Claimed Tax Paid Rs.30,02,618.00. Cpc Assessed At Rs.94,32,160.00 But Allowed Payments Of Rs.29,83,831.00. Cpc Did Not Allow Tcs Of Rs.1,01,759.00 & Rs.1,48,456.00 Deducted By Banks Even Though Appearing In 26As. Cpc Wrongly Stated Year Of Deduction

Section 250

Young Mens Welfare Society, Kolkata vs. ADIT (CPC), Bangalore

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

ITA 614/KOL/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.613&614/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Young Mens Welfare Society............................................................……Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069. [Pan: Aaaay3175H] Vs. Adit (Cpc), Bangalore……….…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddarth Agrawal, Fca, 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 06, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 21, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: Both The Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 19.09.2022 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’). Since, Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Appeals, Hence These Have Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. 2. Earlier The Appeals Of The Assessee Were Decided Vide Order Dated 01.05.2023. However, Some Mistakes Apparent On Record Was Noting Down & Facts Were Brought To Our Knowledge Vide Ma Nos.45&46/Kol/2023. The Said M.As Were Decided Vide Order Dated

Section 154Section 250

Young Mens Welfare Society, Kolkata vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 613/KOL/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.613&614/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Young Mens Welfare Society............................................................……Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069. [Pan: Aaaay3175H] Vs. Adit (Cpc), Bangalore……….…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddarth Agrawal, Fca, 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 06, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 21, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: Both The Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 19.09.2022 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’). Since, Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Appeals, Hence These Have Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. 2. Earlier The Appeals Of The Assessee Were Decided Vide Order Dated 01.05.2023. However, Some Mistakes Apparent On Record Was Noting Down & Facts Were Brought To Our Knowledge Vide Ma Nos.45&46/Kol/2023. The Said M.As Were Decided Vide Order Dated

Section 154Section 250

Sukumar Chowdhury, Paschim Meminipur vs. ITO, Medinipur

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 391/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.391&318/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sukumar Chowdhury….…………………................................……Appellant Srinagar, Chandrakona, Paschim Medinipur -721242 [Pan: Acfpc9625C] Vs. Ito, Ward-38(1), Medinipur…….............……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. P. Datta, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Madhumita Das, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 20, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 20, 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 Dated 21.02.2023 & 03.02.2023 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’). Ita 318/Kol/2023 Is Relating To The Assessment Order Framed U/S 144 Of The Act, Whereas, Ita No.391/Kol/2023 Is Relating To The Penalty Levied U/S 271B Of The Act. Since, Both The Appeals Are Pertaining To The Same Assessee, Hence, The Same Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. 2. Earlier, These Appeals Of The Assessee Were Decided Vide Order Dated 4Th July 2023. However, The Assessee Thereafter Filed A M.A No.49/Kol/2023 Stating Therein That The Issue Involved In These Appeals

Section 144Section 250Section 271B

Sukumar Chowdhury, Paschim Medinipur vs. ITO, Medinipur

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 318/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.391&318/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sukumar Chowdhury….…………………................................……Appellant Srinagar, Chandrakona, Paschim Medinipur -721242 [Pan: Acfpc9625C] Vs. Ito, Ward-38(1), Medinipur…….............……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. P. Datta, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Madhumita Das, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 20, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 20, 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 Dated 21.02.2023 & 03.02.2023 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’). Ita 318/Kol/2023 Is Relating To The Assessment Order Framed U/S 144 Of The Act, Whereas, Ita No.391/Kol/2023 Is Relating To The Penalty Levied U/S 271B Of The Act. Since, Both The Appeals Are Pertaining To The Same Assessee, Hence, The Same Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. 2. Earlier, These Appeals Of The Assessee Were Decided Vide Order Dated 4Th July 2023. However, The Assessee Thereafter Filed A M.A No.49/Kol/2023 Stating Therein That The Issue Involved In These Appeals

Section 144Section 250Section 271B