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

A.C.I.T., Circle-2, Siliguri vs. Rakesh Sarawgi, Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1901/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1901/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Circle-2, Siliguri......................……….........…..........….…… Appellant Vs. Rakesh Sarawgi...............….....….....……........….....…...…..…..... Respondent S.P Mukherjee Road, Siliguri, Pin-734005. [Pan:Akqps5923E] 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 : February 07, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 03, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 11.04.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Siliguri [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Revenue In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Whether The Transaction Not Reflected In Itr & Claimed To Be Reflected In The Personal Balance Sheet Can Be Treated As Disclosed. 2. Whether The Primary Requirements In Case Of Transaction From Party Like Identification, Creditworthiness & Genuineness Of The Transactions Can Be Decided In The Case On The Basis Of Paper Book Submitted By The Assessee Despite The Fact That These Papers Required Further Verification. 3. Whether The Cit(A) Is Right In Admitting Fresh Evidences Filed Before Him In Respect Of Introduce Of Capital In The Form Of Paper Book Especially

Section 250Section 68

Raj Goenka, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC-4(3), Kolkata

In the result, the captioned appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

ITSSA 114/KOL/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Mar 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.(Ss)A Nos.112, 113 & 114/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Raj Goenka.....................…………………...........................………...…..…Appellant 3Rd Floor, Merlin Chambers, 18 British India Street, Dalhousie, Kolkata- 700 069. [Pan: Adlpg8181C] Vs. Dcit, Cc-4(3), Kolkata...……..…..…...................................…....…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 02, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 29, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders All Dated 30.11.2022 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Kolkata [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 Consolidated Order. 2. The Assessee, In These Appeals, Has Contested The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer In The Assessments Framed U/S 153A Of The Act

Section 132Section 153ASection 250