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

JCIT(OSD), Kolkata vs. Total Agri Care Concern(P)Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is here by dismissed

ITA 438/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.438/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jcit(Osd), Circle-11(1), Kolkata…………….…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Total Agri Care Concern Pvt. Ltd.............................…..…..... Respondent 2Nd Floor, Room No.6, Netaji Subhas Road, Bbd Bagh, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aabct9400H] Appearances By: Shri Indranil Banerjee, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Hearing : June 20, 2023 & October 16, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 16, 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 05.12.2022 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 Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessing Officer\Cpc, While Processing The Return Of The Assessee Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, Made It Disallowance Of Rs.7 057 2,643/- On Account Of Inadmissible Expenditure Under Section 37 Of The Act. The Assessee Filed Rectification Application U/S 154 Of The Act Stating Therein That Since The Assessee Has Not Claimed The Said Amount As Expenditure, Therefore, No Disallowance Was Attracted Of This Amount. However, The Said Claim Of The Assessee Was Rejected By The Ao/Cpc.

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 37

West Bengal Housing Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-13(1)., Kolkata

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

ITA 300/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 300/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 West Bengal Housing Infrastructure Assistant Commissioner Of Income Development Corporation Limited Vs Tax, Circle-13(1), Kolkata Hidco Bhaban 35-1111, Major Arterial Road 3Rd Rotary, New Town Kolkata - 700156 [Pan : Aaacw4115F] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.R. Dutta, Fca Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04/10/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/10/2023 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, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 14/02/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That The Ld. Cit (Appeals) Has Erred Both In Fact & In Law In Upholding The Addition Made By The Ao Of Rs.45,31,06,825 To The Total Income Of The Appellant. 2. That The Order Dated 10 June2021 Is Bad In Law & Is Liable To Be Quashed & / Or Set Aside As The Same Proceeds On The Basis Of The Return Filed On The Basis Of Accounts Of The Appellant Under Gaap & Not On The Basis Of Accounts Converted Into Ind-As, As The Adoption Of Ind-As Became

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Dutta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

Sheena Rana Marak, Byrnihat vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi

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

ITA 45/GTY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati16 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 45/Gty/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sheena Rana Marak National Faceless Assessment Vs Centre, Delhi Meera Service Station 6Th Mile, G.S. Road Shillong - 793102 [Pan: Alupm6741K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor Jain, Fca Revenue By : Shri Chandan Dutta, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11/10/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/10/2023 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. 21/03/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Without Prejudice To The Grounds Raised Before This Tribunal, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Passing An Ex-Parte Order Without Providing Any Reasonable Opportunity Of Hearing To The Assessee. We Have Perused The Impugned Order & Observed That During The Course Of Appellate Proceedings Before The Ld. Cit(A), Various Notices Of Hearing Were Issued But There Was No Response From The Assessee & Thus The Ld. Cit(A) Decided The Appeal By Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Assessing Officer On Account Of Non-Appearance Of The Assessee. The

For Appellant: Shri Kishor Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Chandan Dutta, D/R
Section 250