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

Ajay Chouhan, Bhilai, Durg vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

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

ITA 219/RPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.219/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ajay Chouhan Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Income First Floor, Chouhan Estate Tax-1(1) Supela, Bhilai-490 023 32/32 Bunglow, Bhailai-490 009 (C.G.) Pan: Acfpc 0549K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.R. Rao, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 23/08/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06 /09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 02.06.2023 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1) In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Exemption Of Rs.47,90,164 Claimed U/S 54B Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961. 2) The Impugned Order Is Bad In Law & On Facts. 3) The Appellant Reserves The Right To Add, Alter Or Omit All Or Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal In The Interest Of Justice.”

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, SR-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 548Section 54B

The Hind Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, Belgavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), Belagavi

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED

ITA 38/PAN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji01 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 038/Pan/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Hind Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., 131, Hindwadi, Belgaum, Karnataka-590011 Pan: Aacat4514B . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Belgaum . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr N. Shrikanth [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 07/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01/09/2023 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; Against The Impugned Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048023500(1) Dt. 15/12/2022 Passed U/S 250 Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereafter] By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’ Hereafter] The Present Appeal Is Instituted U/S 253(1) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2017-18 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr N. Shrikanth [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

Shri Mahatma Basaveshwar Credit Souhard Sahakari Niyamit, Belagavi vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

The appeal is ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE

ITA 105/PAN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji01 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 105/Pan/2022 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Mahatma Basaveshwar Credit Souhard Sahakari Niyamit Chikod Rd., Nipani, Belagavi-591237. Pan: Aaaas2281C . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Cpc, Bengaluru (Karnataka) . . . . . . .प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Represented Assessee By : Mr Veeranna Murgod [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr N. Shrikanth [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 14/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01/09/2023 आदेश/ Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; By Present Appeal The Assessee Challenges Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short ‘Nfac’] Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1045262282(1) Dt. 07/09/2022 Passed U/S 250 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’] Which In Turn Ascended Out Of An Intimation Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Act By Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Cpc, Bengaluru [In Short ‘Ao’] For Assessment Year 2018-19 [In Short ‘Ay’].

For Appellant: Mr Veeranna Murgod [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr N. Shrikanth [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(1)Section 246A(1)(a)Section 250Section 250(6)