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

Lakshmi Sadho Commercial (P)Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Kolkata

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

ITA 516/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.516/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Lakshmi Sadho Commercial (P) Ltd........................................………....Appellant 134, Ashutosh Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-700025. [Pan: Aabcl6120C] Vs. Ito, Ward-10(2), Kolkata........…............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Raj Kumar Agarwal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 10, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 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 26.04.2023 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. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Invited Our Attention To The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) To Submit That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Stating That The Same As Not Maintainable On The Ground That In The Appeal Form 35, The Assessee Has Mentioned The Relevant Section Under Which The Assessing Officer Has Passed The Order As 143(3) Of The Act, Whereas, The Appeal Before The Cit(A) Was Passed Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer U/S 271B Of The Act.

Section 250Section 271B

Apeejay House Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-8(1)., Kolkata

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

ITA 198/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 198/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Apeejay House Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata 15, Park Street Vs Kolkata - 700016 [Pan : Aacca1959K] अपीलाथ"/ (Assessee ) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca Revenue By : Shri Shubhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/07/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”], Bearing Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1049633071(1) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 10/02/2023 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Ld. Cit(A) Dismissed The Appeal Only On Account Of Delay In Filing Of The Appeal & No Adjudication Has Been Done On Merit & Further Submitted That In Pursuance To The Cbdt Circular No. 20/2016, Dt. 26/05/2016, The Time For Filing The Appeal Was Extended Till 15/06/2016 & The Assessee Submitted The Appeal On 14/06/2015 And, Therefore, There Was No Delay. Thus, Prayer Was Made To Direct The Ld. Cit(A) To Admit The Appeal On Merits & Decide The Issue Raised Therein Considering The Submissions Of The Assessee. On The Other

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Shubhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT D/R
Section 143(3)Section 250

Sanjay Kumar, B.S.City vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Bokaro

ITA 23/RAN/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.23/Ran/2020 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sanjay Kumar…………....….............................................................……Appellant C/O Chas Metal Centre, Jadhadih More, Chas, Bokaro Steel City, Jharkhand-827013. [Pan: Aempk3731J] Vs. Acit, Circle-3(1), Bokaro.....................……....................……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. K. Koley, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 24, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 07, 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 16.12.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal, Hazaribagh (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 Assessment Order Dated 26.12.2018 Passes U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Income Tax Act For The Ay 2011-12 Is Contrary To Law & Annexed The Facts Of The Order. 2. For That Assessment Order Dated 26.12.2018 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act Is Wholly Without Jurisdiction, Illegal, Arbitrators & Baseless.

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 250