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

Goutam Chandra Das, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 22(1). Kolkata, Kolkata

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

ITA 779/KOL/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 779/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Goutam Chandra Das Income Tax Officer, Ward-22(1), Vs Kolkata P-62, Goodluck House Cit Scheme Vii-M Kankurgachi Kolkata - 700054 [Pan : Acwpd1241N] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 14/02/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/02/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 19/12/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. A Perusal Of The Grounds Of Appeal Reveal That The Sole Issue Being Agitated Before Us Is That, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Passed An Ex-Parte Order, While Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Making Addition Of Rs.76,69,261/- Under Various Heads, Thereby Violating The Principles Of Natural Justice. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Ld. Cit(A) Had Issued Notice Of Hearing On 26/03/2018 Fixing The Hearing On 10/04/2018, In Compliance To Which, The Assessee Appeared Before The Ld. Cit(A) Through His Authorized Counsel & Also Filed Written Submissions Along With Enclosures. But The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Taking Cognizance Of The Same & Adjourned The Case Sine Die. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 250Section 250(6)

Greentech Environ Management Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.D.I.T., CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 708/KOL/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.708/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Greentech Environ Management Pvt. Ltd............................……...…..…Appellant 847/A, Block-A, Lake Town, Kolkata-700089. [Pan: Aaecg1536G] Vs. Adit, Cpc, Bangalore ........................................................…....…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anuj Musaddi, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 25, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 24 , 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 13.10.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Sole Grievance Raised By The Assessee, In This Appeal, Is Relating To The Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 80Ia Of The Act. 3. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Assessee Due To Some Inadvertent Error Could Not Make The Claim Of Section 80Ia Deduction In The Original Return Of Income. However, Later On, The Return Was Revised & The Claim Of Deduction U/S 80Ia Of The Act Was Made. However, The Lower Authorities Rejected The Claim Of The Assessee On The

Section 250Section 80I