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

Drvk Traders Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(1), Kolkatta, Kolkata

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

ITA 58/KOL/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Apr 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. Nos.57&58/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Drvk Traders Pvt. Ltd....………..…................…..........….…… Appellant 114/A, 3Rd Floor, Madan Mohan Burman Street, Kolkata-700007. [Pan: Aadcd0219J] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Kolkata...........……........….........…...…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 17, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 17, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: Both The Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 15.12.2022 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’). Since, Common Issues Are Involved In All The Appeals, Hence These Have Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. 2. The Appeal In Ita No.57/Kol/2023 For Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Taken As Lead Case For The Purpose Of Narration Of Facts. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Because The Compliance To The Notices Issued By The Cit(A) Could Not Be Made By The Appellant As It Was Completely Unaware Of The Notices Having Been Issued For The Hearing Of The Appeal & In The Absence Of

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250

Drvk Traders Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 57/KOL/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Apr 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. Nos.57&58/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Drvk Traders Pvt. Ltd....………..…................…..........….…… Appellant 114/A, 3Rd Floor, Madan Mohan Burman Street, Kolkata-700007. [Pan: Aadcd0219J] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Kolkata...........……........….........…...…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 17, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 17, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: Both The Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 15.12.2022 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’). Since, Common Issues Are Involved In All The Appeals, Hence These Have Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. 2. The Appeal In Ita No.57/Kol/2023 For Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Taken As Lead Case For The Purpose Of Narration Of Facts. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Because The Compliance To The Notices Issued By The Cit(A) Could Not Be Made By The Appellant As It Was Completely Unaware Of The Notices Having Been Issued For The Hearing Of The Appeal & In The Absence Of

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250

Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Ghazipur vs. ITO, Ward - 3(5), Ghazipur

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

ITA 18/VNS/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi13 Apr 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalerakesh Kumar Gupta, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bakharipur, Ward 3(5), Mohammadabad, Ghazipur District- Ghazipur Uttar Pradesh. Uttar Pradesh Pan/Gir No. : Axhpg7724R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri O.P. Shukla & Shri Ashutosh Barnwal, Advocates.Ar Respondent By : Shri A.K. Singh. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Cit(A) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Rakesh Kumar Gupta 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld.Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That There Is A Delay In Filing The Appeal & The Assessee Was Suffering From Cancer & Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Along With Details Of Medical Diagnosis To Substantiate The Reasonable Cause For Delay Of 151 Days In Filing The Appeal. We Have Considered The Facts Mentioned In The Condo Nation Application & Supporting The Evidences & Find That The Assessee Has Explained The Reasonable Cause For The Delay & The Ld. Dr Has No Serious Objections. Accordingly,We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal & Heard.

For Appellant: Shri O.P. Shukla, And Shri Ashutosh BarnwalFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Singh. DR
Section 115Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69

Central Charitable Trust, Jafarpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Varanasi

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

ITA 12/VNS/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi12 Apr 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalecentral Charitable Trust Vs. Income Tax Officer Jafrapur- 276001, Exemption, Uttar Pradesh. Wardayakarbhawan, Maqboolalam Road, Varanasi 221002 Uttar Pradesh Pan/Gir No. : Aabtc4875G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shriarvind Shukla, Advocate Respondentby : Shri A.K. Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Cit(A)Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Central Charitable Trust “1. Because The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Trust Running Educational Institution Without Appreciating The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case In The Correct Perspective. 2. Because The Learned Ao As Well As The Learned Cit(A) Have Failed To Appreciate That The Assessee Is Engaged Solely In Running An Educational Institution Having Gross Receipts Below One Crore & Hence No Part Of His Receipts/Income Was Taxable By Virtue Of Clear Unambiguous Provisions Of Section 10(232)(Iiiad). 3. Because The Authorities Below Have Sought To Deny The Benefit Available To The Educational Institution By Clear Provisions Of Section 10(23C)(Iiiad) With Unrelated Provisions Of Section 11/12A When Such Sections Should Not Be Applied To The Facts Of The Case. 4. Because The Authorities Below Have Sought To Deny The Benefit Available To The Educational Institution On The Basis Of Some Inadvertent Technical Errors In Filing Return Without Appreciating The Facts Of The Case. 5. Because The Order Is Bad In Law As Well As On Facts.”

For Appellant: ShriArvind Shukla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 10(232)(iiiad)Section 10ASection 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250