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

Mr. Ramesh Manchhalal Purohit, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Ward-19(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 507/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadalemr. Ramesh Manchhalal Vs. Ito – 19(3)(1) Purohit, 202, 2Nd Floor, 72 Mg Mahimtura Marg, Matrumandir, Tardeo, Khumbharwada,3Rdlane, Mumbai – 400007. Mumbai-400004 Pan/Gir No. : Aagpr9146Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Kinjal Bhuta.Ar Respondent By : Ms.Jayashree Thakur.Dr Date Of Hearing 24.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Ground Of Appeal Challenging The Order Of The Cit(A) Dismissed On Account Of Delay In Filling The Appeal Without Giving Proper Opportunity To The Assessee. Ramesh Manchhalal Purohit, Mumbai. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business & Has Filed The Return Of Income For The A.Y 2012-13 Disclosing A Total Income Of Rs.3,56,590/-And The Return Of Income Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Further The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Assessing Officer(A.O) Made Additions In Respect Of Interest Income Of Rs. 55,312/- & Agricultural Income Of Rs.2,95,410/- & The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Determining The Assessed Income Of Rs.7,07,310/-. Subsequently The Ao Has Received Information From The Ito (Inv), Thane In Respect Of Transactions By The Assessee With M/S Pramod Steel Company Of Rs. 10 Lakhs.

For Appellant: Ms.Kinjal Bhuta.ARFor Respondent: Ms.Jayashree Thakur.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148

Jai Maa Sharda Agro and Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 6(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 124/KOL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.124/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Jai Maa Sharda Agro & Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd................................…Appellant 23B, N S Road, 4Th Floor, Security House, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aaccj3122F] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Kolkata.................................................…....…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ashish Agarwal, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 03, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 06, 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 1.01.2022 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 Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Invited Our Attention To The Impugned Order Of The Assessing Officer To Submit That The Same Is An Ex Parte Order Passed U/S 144 Of The Act. The Ld. Counsel Has Further Submitted That The Jurisdiction, In This Case, Of The Assessing Officer Was Changed & That The Assessee Has Not Received Any Notice Served By The Assessing Officer During The Assessment Proceedings. Therefore, The Case Of The Assessee Remained Unrepresented Before The

Section 144Section 147Section 250

Sudhangshu Biswas, Alipurduar vs. ITO, Ward 2(3), Alipurduar

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

ITA 234/KOL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.234/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sudhangshu Biswas……………………………................................…Appellant Mcwillium High School, Alipurduar Court, New Town, Madhab More, Alipurduar, W.B-736122 [Pan: Adkpb3433D] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(3), Alipurduar.................................................…....…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 15, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 05, 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 17.12.2021 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 Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Invited Our Attention To The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) To Submit That The Same Is An Ex Parte Order & Further That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Observing That The Same Was Barred By Limitation. The Ld. Counsel Has Further Invited Our Attention To The Assessment Order To Submit That The Same Is Dated 26.12.2016 Which Was Served On

Section 250