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

White Cliff Tea Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-4(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 261/KOL/2023[White Chiff Tea Pvt. Ltd]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A No.261/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 White Cliff Tea Pvt. Ltd................................................................……Appellant 67-B, Ballygunge Circular Road, Ballygunge, Kolkata-700019. [Pan: Aaacw2211L] Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(2), Kolkata...........................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 15, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 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 14.02.2023 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 Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That, The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Grossly Erred In Law In Not Having Adjudicated Upon The Appeal Filed Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 15.12.2017 On The Sole Ground That Only The Last Page Of The Assessment Order Was Attached With Form No.35 Which Was Not As Per Mandatory Requirement In Spite Of The Fact That The Said Inadvertent Omission Was Never Pointed Out In Several Notices Issued Between 02.11.2018 & 27.12.2022 For Granting An Opportunity To The Assessee To Rectify The Said Inadvertent Omission & Moreover, The

Section 143(3)Section 249(4)Section 250

White Cliff Tea Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-4(2)., Kolkata

In the result, the captioned appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 260/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata15 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A No.260/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 White Cliff Tea Pvt. Ltd................................................................……Appellant 67-B, Ballygunge Circular Road, Ballygunge, Kolkata-700019. [Pan: Aaacw2211L] Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(2), Kolkata...........................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 15, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 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 13.02.2023 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. At The Outset, The Authorized Representative Of The Assessee Has Filed A Letter Dated 13.05.2023 Seeking Permission Of The Bench To Withdraw This Appeal Filed By The Assessee. Since The Ld. Dr Has No Objection In This Regard, The Permission As Sought By The Assessee Is Granted & This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Dismissed As Withdrawn.

Section 250

Patliputra Builders Ltd, Patna vs. ACIT Central Circle-2, Patna

In the result, all the captioned appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 51/PAT/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Patna15 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. Nos.49,50&51/Pat/2021 Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 Patliputra Builders Limited………....….....................…..........….…… Appellant 301, Maharaja Kameshwar Complex, Frazer Road, Patna. [Pan: Aaccp0629B] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna…....…………........….....…...…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Shravan Kumar Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Rinku Singh, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 06, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 15.03.2021 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In These Appeals Has Agitated The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Invited Our Attention To The Impugned Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A) To Submit That The Impugned Orders In All The Three Appeals Are Ex Parte Orders. The Ld. Counsel Has Submitted That In Fact The Assessee Did Not Receive Any Of The Notice Of Hearing Issued By The Ld. Cit(A). Moreover, The Alleged Dates Of Hearing Mentioned By The Cit(A) Were During The Covid

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Patliputra Builders Ltd, Patna vs. ACIT Central Circle-2, Patna

In the result, all the captioned appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 50/PAT/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Patna15 May 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. Nos.49,50&51/Pat/2021 Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 Patliputra Builders Limited………....….....................…..........….…… Appellant 301, Maharaja Kameshwar Complex, Frazer Road, Patna. [Pan: Aaccp0629B] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna…....…………........….....…...…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Shravan Kumar Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Rinku Singh, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 06, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 15.03.2021 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In These Appeals Has Agitated The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Invited Our Attention To The Impugned Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A) To Submit That The Impugned Orders In All The Three Appeals Are Ex Parte Orders. The Ld. Counsel Has Submitted That In Fact The Assessee Did Not Receive Any Of The Notice Of Hearing Issued By The Ld. Cit(A). Moreover, The Alleged Dates Of Hearing Mentioned By The Cit(A) Were During The Covid

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Patliputra Builders Ltd, Patna vs. ACIT Central Circle-2, Patna

In the result, all the captioned appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 49/PAT/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Patna15 May 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. Nos.49,50&51/Pat/2021 Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 Patliputra Builders Limited………....….....................…..........….…… Appellant 301, Maharaja Kameshwar Complex, Frazer Road, Patna. [Pan: Aaccp0629B] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna…....…………........….....…...…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Shravan Kumar Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Rinku Singh, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 06, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 15.03.2021 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In These Appeals Has Agitated The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Invited Our Attention To The Impugned Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A) To Submit That The Impugned Orders In All The Three Appeals Are Ex Parte Orders. The Ld. Counsel Has Submitted That In Fact The Assessee Did Not Receive Any Of The Notice Of Hearing Issued By The Ld. Cit(A). Moreover, The Alleged Dates Of Hearing Mentioned By The Cit(A) Were During The Covid

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)