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

Steel House, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-36, Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 755/KOL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Oct 2023AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.755/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Steel House...........................................................................................……Appellant C/O S. L. Kochar, Advocate, 86, Canning Street, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Abofs8585R] Vs. Dcit, Circle-36, Kolkata................................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 17, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 17, 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 30.06.2023 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 Contested The Addition/Adjustment Made By The Cpc In Respect Of An Amount Of Rs.13,79,707/- On Account Of Delayed Payment Of Pf/Esi. 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Small Delay On Account Of Deposit Of Pf/Esi In This Case Was Not Intentional But Due To Certain Reasons Beyond The Control Of The

Section 250

M/S Salarpuria Properties Pvt Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. -1, Kolkata

The appeal is treated as dismissed

ITA 500/KOL/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.500/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Ltd …………….…...……………....Appellant C/O M/S Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 3Rd Floor, 7, Chittaranjan Avenue, Kolkata-700072. [Pan: Aagcs8492P] Vs. Dcit,Circle-1(1), Kolkata………......................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. Jhajaria, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 17.10. 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 17.10.2023 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 20.03.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-5, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 852 Days. A Separate Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed Wherein It Has Been Mentioned That Though The Impugned Order Was Passed By The Cit(A) On 20.03.2018 But The Copy Of The Same Was Never Physically Served Upon The Assessee. The Order Seemed To Have Been Served Through E-Mail, However, The E-Mail Of The Company, Due To Some Inadvertence, Was Not Opened By The Staff Of The Company During The Relevant Period & Therefore, The Assessee Company/Its Directors Were Not Aware Of The

Section 244ASection 250Section 801ASection 80I