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

M/S. Mohan Motor Business Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 67/KOL/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.67/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Mohan Motor Business Pvt. Ltd.................................................……Appellant 55, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata-700071. [Pan: Aacca6163F] Vs. Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata................................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Umakanta Dhrupati, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 19, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 18, 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 10.01.2023 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 The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Rejecting The Ground Of Appeal Of Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice By The Ao By Ignoring The Submissions Of The Assessee & Passing The Order. 2. For That The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Cash Deposits During Demonetization On Ground Of Non-Production Of Any Documentary Evidences When The Cash Balance As On 08.11.2016 Was Duly Proved With

Section 250

Goldburn Commotrade Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-6(1), Kolkata.

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

ITA 667/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.667/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Goldburn Commotrade Pvt. Ltd.................................................……Appellant 8, Amartalla Street, 4Th Floor, Burrabazar, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aaacg9668H] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata.............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, 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 : October 18, 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 29.05.2023 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.) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Dismissing The Appellant'S Appeal On The Ground Of Delay In Filing Of Appeal. 2.) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. C.I.T. (A) Erred In Dismissing Appeal Without Any Discussions On The Merit Of Additions/Disallowance Made By Ld. Ao.

Section 250

M/S. Mohan Motor Business Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 66/KOL/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.66/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Mohan Motor Business Pvt. Ltd.................................................……Appellant 55, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata-700071. [Pan: Aacca6163F] Vs. Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata................................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Umakanta Dhrupati, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 19, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 18, 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 07.11.2022 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. For That The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- Without Properly Considering The Submissions Of The Assessee. 2. For That The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ao In Adding The Share Capital On Grounds Of Non-Appearance Of Share Applicants When The Directors Of The Assessee Company & The Share Holder Companies Were Common Directors & Therefore It Cannot Be Said That The Identity And

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 250Section 68