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

Samridhi Stocks Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 12(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 75/KOL/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jul 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.75/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Samridhi Stocks Pvt. Ltd..............................................................……Appellant Pratik, 2/2 B Justice Chandra Madhav Road, Bhowanipore, Kolkata-700020. [Pan: Aaecs4902L] Vs. Ito, Ward-12(1), Kolkata............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 23, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 13, 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 23.11.2021 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. There Is A Delay In Filing The Present Appeal. A Separate Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed, Wherein, It Has Been Pleaded That The Impugned Order Was Passed By The Cit(A) On 23.11.2021 During The Covid Period & That The Assessee Did Not Receive Any Email Or Copy Of The Order. The Copy Of The Order Was Originally Served By Uploading The Same On The Income Tax Portal. That Subsequently On The Advice Of Legal

Section 143(3)Section 250

ITO, Ward-5(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Fastflow Securities (P) Ltd, Kolkata

ITA 32/KOL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 32/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata...................……….........…..........………...…… Appellant Vs. M/S. Fastflow Securities Pvt. Ltd.........…....…….......….....…...…....... Respondent 41, N.S. Kolkata - 70001 [Pan: Aabcf8361P] Appearances By: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri V.K. Jain, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 15Th, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 13Th, 2023 आदेश / Order Per Dr. Manish Borad, Accounant Member: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 02.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 35 (Thirty Five) Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Impugned Order By Ld. Cit(A) Is Dated 02/09/2020 Which Falls Within The Period Of Pandemic Of Covid-19. Petition For Condonation Of Delay Is Placed On Record By Revenue Explaining The Reasons For Delay, Owing To Pandemic Of Covid-19 During That Time. We Note That The Period Of Delay Falls During The Time Of Pandemic Of I.T.A. No. 32/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Fastflow Securities Pvt. Ltd

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

Somnath Das, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-46(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 496/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2017-18 Somnath Das Ito, Ward-46(1), Kolkata Village: Makardah, Post: Makardah, Vs. Ps: Domjur, Howrah-711409. Pan: Ardpd 8923 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Shyam Sundar Jha, Ar Respondent By : Shri S. Datta, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.07.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.03.2023 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Assessing Office Erred In Facts Of The Case By Estimating The Profit @8% On Sale Proceeds Whereas The Margin On The Price Of The Packed Milk Is Not More Than 2.01% 2. The Assessing Officer Wrongly Considered The Rate Of Profit On Estimation Basis Whereas The Data Related To Payment To The Principal After Realisation Of The Sale Proceeds On Retail Price Are Available. 3. The Learned Assessing Officer Ignored The Actual Sprit Of Business Of The Assessee As Per Agreement Entered By The Assessee With M/S- Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. The Ld. Assessing Officer Ignored The Fact Of The Case That Margin Of 2.01% Is On The Price Of The Packed Milk Is Only Belonging To The Assessee. 4. The Learned Assessing Officer Ignored The Actual Sprit Of Business That The Assessee Is Very Small Businessman Of Selling Product Of 2 Somnath Das A.Y. 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Sundar Jha, ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Datta, CIT, DR
Section 144Section 250