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

M/S H.K.Dutta & Co., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-37, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2384/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 2384/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. H.K. Dutta & Co. Acit, Circle-37, Kolkata 106, B.B. Ganguly Street, Bowbazar Vs Kolkata - 700012 [Pan : Aaefh3361D] अपीलाथ"/ (Assessee ) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca Revenue By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/07/2023 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 Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)-11, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 30/08/2019, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Which Is Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dt. 23/02/2016. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ao Who Disallowed Claim Of Assessee For Weighted Deduction U/S 35(1)(Ii) Amounting To Rs. 26,25,000/- @ 175% In Respect Of Donation Of Rs. 15,00,000/- To School Of Human Genetics & Population. 2. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Partly Allowing The Addition On Account Of Under Valuation Of Closing Stock Made By Ao & Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 8,77,921/- By Making His Own Calculation. 3. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,05,57,773/- U/S 69 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 2

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT D/R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)Section 40A(3)Section 69

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai vs. The J.K Trust Bombay, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 817/MUM/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.817/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit (Exemption)-2(1) बिधम/ The J. K. Trust Bombay Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Ground Floor, New Hind Vs. Mtnl Building, Cumballa House, Ballard Estate, Hill, Mumbai-400026. Mumbai-400001. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.45/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) The J. K. Trust Bombay बिधम/ Dcit (Exemption)-2(1) Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Ground Floor, New Hind Vs. House, Ballard Estate, Mtnl Building, Mumbai-400001. Cumballa Hill, Mumbai- 400026. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatt0611L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Madhur Aggarwal Revenue By: Shri Ankush Kapoor (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeal Preferred By The Revenue As Well As The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Dated 17.01.2023 For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Shri Madhur Aggarwal Drawing Our Attention To The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By Assessee Submitted That Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Deciding The Legal Issue Raised By The Assessee Wherein Assessee Has Brought To The Notice Of The Ld. Cit(A) That The Impugned Order Of Ao Was Pursuant To The Ld. Cit(E)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263

Ballygunj Society for Children in Pain Chip, Kolkata vs. I.T.O.(Exemption), Ward - 1(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 9/KOL/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jun 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.9/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Ballygunj Society For Children In Pain Chip..............................……Appellant 57/14, Ballygunj Circular Road, Ballygunj, Kolkata-700019. [Pan: Aaatb4988N] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(2), Exemptions, Kolkata...........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 03, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 27, 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 17.11.2022 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 Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Charitable Society Registered U/S 12A Of The Act. The Assessee Claimed Deduction U/S 11 Of The Act In Respect Of Income Spent On Charitable Purposes. However, The Assessing Officer/Cpc Disallowed The Expenditure Spent Towards Charitable Purposes For Delay In Filing Of Form 10B. The Cit(A) Confirmed The Additions So Made By The Assessing Officer.

Section 11Section 12ASection 250

Madhu Bhardwaj, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 43(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 30/KOL/2023[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jun 2023AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.30/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Madhu Bhardwaj……….…………………................................……Appellant 14/4, Sovaram Bysak Street, Kolkata-700007 [Pan: Bctpb4954N] Vs. Ito, Ward-43(1), Kolkata….…….............……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Rakesh Jain, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 04, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 27, 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 31.12.2022 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 Assailed Against The Levy Of Late Filing Fees Of Rs.10,451/- Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S 234E Of The Act. 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Assessee Is A Business Woman & Does Not Have Much Knowledge About The Filing Of Return Of Tds/Tcs Under The Income Tax Act & Is Dependent On Her Chartered Accountant. That Though The Entire Data

Section 234ESection 250

Goldline Dealers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 9(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 483/KOL/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jun 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.483/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Goldline Dealers Pvt. Ltd.…………………................................……Appellant 5/1, Clive Row, 4Th Floor, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aaecg0745M] Vs. Ito, Ward-9(2), Kolkata…...…….............……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 10, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 27, 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 29.06.2022 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 Agitated Against The Addition Of Rs.5,88,50,000/-, Allegedly Received By The Assessee By Way Of Accommodation Entry Provided By M/S Lakshya Merchants Pvt. Ltd. 3. In This Case, The Original Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Was Passed On 23.03.2015 Assessing The Income Of Rs.4,70,26,000/- As Against The Nil Income Shown By The Assessee. Thereafter, The Assessing Officer

Section 143(3)Section 250

Raigarh Jute & Textile Mills Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-8(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2286/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.2286/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Raigarh Jute & Textile Mills Ltd...................................................……Appellant 36, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata-700071. [Pan: Aabcr2034B] Vs. Acit, Circle-8(2), Kolkata...............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 16, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 27, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यकसद"य"वारा/ Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.03.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Kolkata (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 That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A)- 15 Erred In Holding That The Assessing Officer Was Justified In Disallowing & Adding Back The Appellant'S Claim For Deduction Of Loss Suffered Of Rs.4,02,00,360/- Suffered By The Appellant In Its Share Trading Business. 2 That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A)-15 Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer Of Invoking The

Section 14ASection 250