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

Manju Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-29(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 685/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 685/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Manju Agarwal Income Tax Officer, Ward – 29(2), 80G, Sarat Bose Road Vs Kolkata Bhowanipore Kolkata - 700025 [Pan : Ahypa5486D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rip Das, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Subhro Das, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/11/2023 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 National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 09/06/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Precise Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That Your Appellant Submits That The Arbitrary Disallowance Of Expenses Made By The Ld. Cit (A), Nfac Without Proper Appraisal Of Facts & Necessity Of The Circumstances For Incurring Such Expenditure & Other Disallowances, May Please Be Reduced To Rs. Nil As Below; "Conveyance Expenses" Disallowed By The Ld. Cit (A), Nfac Rs. 10,977/- (A) Is Prayed To Be Reduced To Rs. Nil. (Relief Claimed - Deletion Of Disallowance Of Rs. 10,977/-). "Travelling Expenses" Disallowed By The Ld. Cit (A), Nfac Rs.8,300/- Is (B) Prayed To Be Reduced To Rs. Nil (Relief Claimed - Deletion Of Disallowance Of Rs.8,300/-). (C) "Office Maintenance" Disallowed By The Ld. Cit (A), Nfac Rs. 14,500/- Is Prayed To Be Reduced To Rs. Nil (Relief Claimed - Deletion Of Disallowance Rs. 14,500/-).

For Appellant: Shri Rip Das, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Subhro Das, Addl. CIT, D/R
Section 143(2)Section 250

Mr Anil Govind Wable, Ahmednagar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Ahmednagar

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 788/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 788/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Anil Govind Wable 6106, Sarjepura, Ahmednagar – 414 001 Pan: Aabpw5018K . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनामम / V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle, Ahmednagar. . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By: Mr Prasad Bhandari & Ravindra Darekar Revenue By: Mr Ramnath P Murkunde सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 27/09/2023 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01/11/2023 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Pune Dt. 12/05/2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short ‘The Act’], Which Ascended Out Of Assessment Order Dt. 12/12/2019 Passed U/S 143(3) By Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle, Ahmednagar [For Short ‘Ao’] For Assessment Year 2017-18 [For Short ‘Ay’].

For Appellant: Mr Prasad Bhandari & Ravindra DarekarFor Respondent: Mr Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 69C

Sarita Rathi, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle-37, Kol, Kolkata

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

ITA 415/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: FixedITAT Kolkata01 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.415/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sarita Rathi………………………...................................................……Appellant Bloc-B, 336 Canal Street, Shree Bhumi Lake Town, Kolkata-700048. [Pan: Adspr6934R] Vs. Acit, Circle-37, Kolkata..............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Saumitra Choudhury, 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 01, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 01, 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 10.03.2023 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. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Assessing Officer (‘The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)' Where An Appeal Is Fled Before The Tribunal Against The Order Of Commissioner (Appeals)) Erred In Adding Without Referring The Submission On 10.03.2023”.

Section 250Section 37Section 68

Dibyendu Jana, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-27(3), Haldia

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

ITA 716/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 716/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dibyendu Jana Income Tax Officer, Ward – 27(3), Haldia C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Vs Advocates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700069 [Pan : Agdpj5316M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 09/05/2023, 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 7 Days In Filing The Present Appeal By The Assessee. Petition For Condonation Of Delay Is Placed On Record By Assessee Explaining The Reasons. On Perusing The Same, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing This Appeal In Time. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Admit The Appeal For Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 250

Damani Infracon (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-3(4), Kol, Kolkata

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

ITA 629/KOL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 716/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dibyendu Jana Income Tax Officer, Ward – 27(3), Haldia C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Vs Advocates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700069 [Pan : Agdpj5316M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 09/05/2023, 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 7 Days In Filing The Present Appeal By The Assessee. Petition For Condonation Of Delay Is Placed On Record By Assessee Explaining The Reasons. On Perusing The Same, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing This Appeal In Time. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Admit The Appeal For Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 250

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Asansol vs. Sandip Choubey, Asansol

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 742/KOL/2022[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 742/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Sandip Choubey Asansol Vs Flat 11A, Abhilasha Apartment Rabindranagar Asansol – 713304 [Pan: Aiipc9579Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Aashi Agarwal, A/R Revenue By : Shri Vevekanda Madhu, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/10/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2023 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. 19/10/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 2 Days In Filing The Present Appeal By The Revenue. Petition For Condonation Of Delay Is Placed On Record By Revenue Explaining The Reasons. On Perusing The Same, We Are Convinced That The Revenue Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing This Appeal In Time. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Admit The Appeal For Hearing. 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Ms. Aashi Agarwal, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Vevekanda Madhu, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 250