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

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 113/KOL/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Mar 2023AY 2012-2013

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

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 112/KOL/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Mar 2023AY 2011-2012

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

DCIT, Exemption Circle, Patna vs. Bijendra Memorial Society, Patna

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3/PAT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.3/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit (Exemption), Circle-Patna........……….........…..........….…… Appellant Vs. Bijendra Memorial Society….....….....……........…...…...…..…..... Respondent 404 Shyam Centre, Exhibition Road, Patna-800001. [Pan:Aabtb1511G] Appearances By: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Rinku Singh, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 01, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 29, 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 28.08.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Patna [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. The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As Facts Of The Case In Deleting The Additions Of Disallowances Towards The Salary/Remuneration Of Rs. 17,40,000/- & Rs.12,60,000/- Paid To Treasurer & Secretary Of The Trust & Rs.3,00,000/- To Shri Kala Choudhary For Hiring Of Bus & Rs.8,40,000/- For Hostel Building Rent To M/S Aadya Bhasker Enterprises Private Limited From The Income Of Trust Which Were Found Excessive & Unreasonable Under Sub-Section (3) Of Section 13 Of The

Section 12ASection 13Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 250

Mr. Shrirang Nathuram Dokhale, Dombivli vs. The Comm of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assesse stand dismissed

ITA 149/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhmr. Shrirang Nathuram Vs. The Commissioner Of Dokhale, C-148 Kasturi Income Tax (Appeals)- Plaza, Manpada Road Nfac Dombivli (East) Dombivli – 421201 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaspd5020F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Sachin Bhinarde Respondent By : Bharat Andhale Date Of Hearing 16.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Nfac, Delhi Dated 22.11.2022 For A.Y. 2014-15. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. The Order Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Bearing Order No Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1047564381(1) Dated 22.11.2022 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax & The Learned Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-3, Kalyan Has Erred In Passing An Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 17.10.2016 Are Bad In Law. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Nfac, Has Erred In Passing An Order Having Order No./Din Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1047564381(1) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 22.11.2022 & The Learned Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-3, Kalyan Has Erred In Passing An Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 17 10 2016 Has Where The Assessee Has Taken One View With Which The Commissioner Of Income Tax Has Not Agreed.

For Appellant: Sachin BhinardeFor Respondent: Bharat Andhale
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32