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

Jayant Masrani(HUF), Kolkata vs. ITO, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 349/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: PendingITAT Kolkata06 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 349/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Jayant Masrani (Huf) Income Tax Officer, Ward-30(2), 410, Darpan Apartment, Golpark Vs Kolkata 50A, Purna Das Road Kolkata - 700029 [Pan : Aafhj4906F] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. Sadhu, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Is The Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 13/02/2023 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Two Grounds, But The Effective Grievance Of The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Deleting The Addition Of Rs.1,29,442/- Without Considering The Fact That Profit From Commodities & Speculation Profit Of Rs.1,29,347/- Has Already Been Considered As Income. 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That In The Re- Assessment Proceedings Carried Out After Issuing Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Against The Returned Income Of Rs. 1,63,290/-, An Addition Was Made For Commodity Profit Of Rs.1,25,427/- & Speculation Profit Of Rs. 3,967/-. It

For Appellant: Shri S. Sadhu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 148Section 250

Shashi Cables Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 83/KOL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 83/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shashi Cables Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income 7, Chittaranjan Avenue Vs Tax- Cpc Kolkata - 700072 [Pan : Aaecs2131F] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R.K. Agarwal, C.A. Revenue By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Is The Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 16/12/2021 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That Adjustment, By Way Of Addition Of Rs.37,13,674/- Representing Write-Back Of Ms Drum Written Off, To The Returned Income Which Was Claimed As Not Taxable Ought To Have Been Deleted By Ld. Cit(A). 2. For That Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining The Disallowance Of Rs.164,605/- U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act. 3. For That Ld Ao Erred In Holding That Amendments Made In Section 36(1)(Va) & Section 43B Are Clarificatory In Nature & Hence, Have Retrospective Operation.”

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT D/R
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 43B

Neha Projects (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT-4, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 2512/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 2512/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Neha Projects (P) Ltd. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax- C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Vs 4, Kolkata Advocates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane Suite 213, 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700069 [Pan : Aabcn7722J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Is The Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 4, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Pr. Cit”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 12/03/2019 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. At The Outset, We Note That There Is A Letter From The Assessee That It Has Already Received Form No. 4 From The Income Tax Department, Intimating The Payment Of Taxes As Envisaged In The Direct Tax Vivad Se Viswas Scheme, 2020 (Hereinafter, The ‘Scheme’). In The Light Of The Aforesaid Fact, We Allow The Assessee To Withdraw The Appeal. However For Any Reason, If The Competent Authority Does Not Accept The Assessee’S Application For Opting In Respect Of The

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT, D/R
Section 250

Shri Biswajit Dasbagal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 366/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 366/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Biswajit Dasbagal Income Tax Officer, Ward-26(2), 60/31, Mahndra Banerjee Road Vs Kolkata Kolkata - 700060 [Pan : Amrpb2238E] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Abhishek Bansal, Fca Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Datta, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/06/2023 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 (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 11/07/2022 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 220 Days In Filing Of This Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons Of Delay. After Perusing The Same, We Find That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. Hence, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted. 3. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance/Additions Of Expenditure & Sundry Debtors Made By The Assessing Officer At Rs. 12,94,939/-. The Ld.

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Bansal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Datta, Sr. D/R
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 44A