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

Sri Sita Ram Rai, Dhanbad vs. ITO TDS Ward, Dhanbad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 14/RAN/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi28 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. Nos.13&14/Ran/2022 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Sri Sita Ram Rai……..….…..…………..…...…......................……...…..….. Appellant 1, New Karmik Nagar, Ism Saraidhella, Dhanbad, Jharkhand - 826004. [Pan: Afipr2324B] Vs. Ito, Tds Ward-Dhanbad………………………….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 01, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 28, 2023 Order Per Sanjay Garg: Both The Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 15.03.2022 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’). The Assessee In Both The Appeals Has Agitated The Levy Of Late Filing Fees U/S 234E Of The Act Along With Interest Thereupon Levied U/S 220(2) Of The Act. Since, Common Issues Are Involved In All The Appeals, Hence These Have Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. The Appeal In Ita No.13/Ran/2022 For Assessment Year 2013-14 Is Taken As Lead Case For The Purpose Of Narration Of Facts. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Deducted Tax At Source (Tds) In Respect Of Certain Payments. As Per The Provisions Of 1

Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234ESection 250

Sri Sita Ram Rai, Dhanbad vs. ITO, Dhanbad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 13/RAN/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi28 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. Nos.13&14/Ran/2022 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Sri Sita Ram Rai……..….…..…………..…...…......................……...…..….. Appellant 1, New Karmik Nagar, Ism Saraidhella, Dhanbad, Jharkhand - 826004. [Pan: Afipr2324B] Vs. Ito, Tds Ward-Dhanbad………………………….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 01, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 28, 2023 Order Per Sanjay Garg: Both The Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 15.03.2022 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’). The Assessee In Both The Appeals Has Agitated The Levy Of Late Filing Fees U/S 234E Of The Act Along With Interest Thereupon Levied U/S 220(2) Of The Act. Since, Common Issues Are Involved In All The Appeals, Hence These Have Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. The Appeal In Ita No.13/Ran/2022 For Assessment Year 2013-14 Is Taken As Lead Case For The Purpose Of Narration Of Facts. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Deducted Tax At Source (Tds) In Respect Of Certain Payments. As Per The Provisions Of 1

Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234ESection 250

Radha Raman Tripathy, Bokaro vs. ITO, Bokaro

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 41/RAN/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi28 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. Nos.40&41/Ran/2020 Assessment Years: 2002-03 & 2013-14 Shri Radha Raman Tripathy.…………..…...…......................……...…..….. Appellant Plot No. F-9, City Centre, Sector-Iv, Bokaro Steel City. [Pan: Abhpt2232Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(2), Bokaro….………………………….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri R. R. Tripathy, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 27, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 28, 2023 Order Per Sanjay Garg: Both The Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 27.02.2020 & 19.02.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Hazaribagh [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since, Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Appeals, Hence, These Have Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. The Appeal In Ita No.40/Ran/2020 For Assessment Year 2002-03 Is Taken As Lead Case For The Purpose Of Narration Of Facts. 2. The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Income Tax Return On 19.03.2004 Disclosing Total Income Of Rs.1,56,420/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Subsequently, It Came To The Of 1

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 250

Radha Raman Tripathy, Bokaro vs. ITO, Bokaro

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 40/RAN/2020[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi28 Apr 2023AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. Nos.40&41/Ran/2020 Assessment Years: 2002-03 & 2013-14 Shri Radha Raman Tripathy.…………..…...…......................……...…..….. Appellant Plot No. F-9, City Centre, Sector-Iv, Bokaro Steel City. [Pan: Abhpt2232Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(2), Bokaro….………………………….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri R. R. Tripathy, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 27, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 28, 2023 Order Per Sanjay Garg: Both The Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 27.02.2020 & 19.02.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Hazaribagh [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since, Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Appeals, Hence, These Have Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. The Appeal In Ita No.40/Ran/2020 For Assessment Year 2002-03 Is Taken As Lead Case For The Purpose Of Narration Of Facts. 2. The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Income Tax Return On 19.03.2004 Disclosing Total Income Of Rs.1,56,420/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Subsequently, It Came To The Of 1

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 250

Welkin Telecom Infra Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the captioned appeals of the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 430/KOL/2022[2019-2020]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata27 Apr 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. Nos.429&430/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2019-20 Welkin Telecom Infra Pvt. Ltd………………………………........….……Appellant 76/1, Golaghata Road, 2Nd Floor, Vip Road, Kolkata-700048. [Pan: Aajcs6622G] Vs. Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata…..……......................….........…...…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Kornika Chatterjee, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 27, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 27, 2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench: Both The Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 07.06.2022 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. At The Outset, The Authorized Representative Of The Assessee Has Filed A Letter Dated 20.12.2022 Seeking Permission Of The Bench To Withdraw Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee. Since The Ld. Dr Has No Objection In This Regard, The Permission As Sought By The Assessee Is Granted & These Appeals Of The Assessee Are Dismissed As Withdrawn.

Section 250

Welkin Telecom Infra Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the captioned appeals of the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 429/KOL/2022[2017-2018]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata27 Apr 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. Nos.429&430/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2019-20 Welkin Telecom Infra Pvt. Ltd………………………………........….……Appellant 76/1, Golaghata Road, 2Nd Floor, Vip Road, Kolkata-700048. [Pan: Aajcs6622G] Vs. Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata…..……......................….........…...…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Kornika Chatterjee, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 27, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 27, 2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench: Both The Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 07.06.2022 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. At The Outset, The Authorized Representative Of The Assessee Has Filed A Letter Dated 20.12.2022 Seeking Permission Of The Bench To Withdraw Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee. Since The Ld. Dr Has No Objection In This Regard, The Permission As Sought By The Assessee Is Granted & These Appeals Of The Assessee Are Dismissed As Withdrawn.

Section 250