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

Karan Developers Through Deceased Partner Late Gulab Ratnani Through Legal Heir Lata Gulab Ratnani, Pimpri Pune vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 8, Akurdi, Pune, Aukrdi

The appeal is dismissed as WITHDRAWN

ITA 328/PUN/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 328/Pun/2023 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Karan Developers Through Deceased Partner L/H Shop No-4, Sai Vaishnavi, Pimpri, Pune-411 017 Pan : Aagfk8290A . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-8, Akurdi, Pune. . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा/ Appearances Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan & Arrchena Shetty Revenue By : Shri Keyur Patel, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 26/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 26/05/2023 आदेश/ Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Of First Appellate Authority National Faceless Appeal Centre [For Short “Nfac”] Dt. 20/01/2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”] Emanating From Order Of Penalty Dt. 30/03/2018 Passed U/S 271(1)(C) By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune [For Short “Ao”] For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2009-10. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 2

For Appellant: Shri Hari Krishan & Arrchena ShettyFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

S. K. Trexim (P) Limited, Guwahati vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Guwahati

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

ITA 45/GTY/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati30 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2012-13 S.K. Trexim (P) Ltd. Dcit, Circle-2, Guwahati C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Vs. Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069. Pan: Aancs 4492 G (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Respondent By : Shri N.T. Sherpa, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 15.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 03.12.2018 Of Ld. Cit(A), Guwahati-1 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’]. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That The Ex-Parte Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Is In Gross Violation Of The Principles Of Natural Justice & As Such, Is Not Sustainable In Law. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Without Dealing With The Merit Of The Additions Made By The Ao. 3.(A) For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 92,80,000/-

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.T. Sherpa, JCIT
Section 250Section 68