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

Vishwanath Kadia Shetty, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 22(3), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 122/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 121 & 122/Mum/2023 (A.Ys.2012-13 & 2014-15) Vishwanath Kadia Shetty Vs. Acit, Circle 22(3) 501, St. Sebestian Piramal Chamber, Classic, Road No.3, Lower Parel, Sunder Nagar, Kalina, Mumbai – 400 013 Santacruz East, Mumbai – 400 098 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadps5744G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Haridas Bhat Respondent By : Shri Bharat Andhale Date Of Hearing 13.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of Nfac, Delhi, Dated 26.12.2022. Since Common Issue On Identical Facts Are Involved In These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Are Adjudicated Together By Taking Ita No. 121/Mum/2023 As Lead Case & Its Finding Will Be Applied To Ita No. 122/Mum/2023 Mutatis Mutandis. “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case & In Law The Ld. Comm Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Passing The Order U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Without Affording Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard.

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhatFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale
Section 148Section 2(47)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

Vishwanath Kadia Shetty, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-22(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 121/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 121 & 122/Mum/2023 (A.Ys.2012-13 & 2014-15) Vishwanath Kadia Shetty Vs. Acit, Circle 22(3) 501, St. Sebestian Piramal Chamber, Classic, Road No.3, Lower Parel, Sunder Nagar, Kalina, Mumbai – 400 013 Santacruz East, Mumbai – 400 098 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadps5744G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Haridas Bhat Respondent By : Shri Bharat Andhale Date Of Hearing 13.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of Nfac, Delhi, Dated 26.12.2022. Since Common Issue On Identical Facts Are Involved In These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Are Adjudicated Together By Taking Ita No. 121/Mum/2023 As Lead Case & Its Finding Will Be Applied To Ita No. 122/Mum/2023 Mutatis Mutandis. “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case & In Law The Ld. Comm Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Passing The Order U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Without Affording Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard.

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhatFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale
Section 148Section 2(47)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

Rankup Footwear Industries Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 427/KOL/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Mar 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.427/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rankup Footwear Industries Pvt. Ltd...…..........…..................….…… Appellant 10, Chowbagha Road, Near 42A Bus Stand, West Bengal-700039. [Pan:Aagcr0763G] Vs. Ito, Ward-11(1), Kolkata...…..………....……........…...…...…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Saumitra Choudhury, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Vivek Verma, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 17, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 16, 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 27.06.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading Of Footwear. The Assessing Officer During The Assessment Proceedings Noted That The Assessee Had Shown Huge Cash Sales In The Month Of October 2016 I.E. During The Demonetisation Period & Deposited The Cash Amount In His Bank Accounts. The Assessing Officer Was Of The View That The Aforesaid Cash Deposit Was Unaccounted Income Of The Assessee.

Section 250Section 44A