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

Aakansha Dealer (P) Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-5(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 266/KOL/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.266/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Aakansha Dealer Pvt. Ltd..…………………...........…..........….…… Appellant 243/2M, Apc Road, Manicktala, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700006. [Pan: Aagca1406R] Vs. Ito, Ward-5(3), Kolkata.........…………..................…...…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 23, 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 03.03.2017 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-17, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. There Was A Delay Of 290 Days Pointed Out By The Registry. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee, On The Earlier Date Of Hearing, Has Submitted That The Assessee Was Not Supplied The Copy Of The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) Dated 03.03.2017, Whereupon, A Report From The Office Of The Commissioner Of Income(Appeals) Was Called For. As Per The Report Provided, The Office Of The Commissioner Of Income(Appeals) Vide Its Letter Dated 22.09.2022 Has Written That There Was No Proof Of Service Of

Section 250

Alcove Construction Pvt. Ltd. (Now Merged With Alcove Industries Pvt. Ltd.), Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 10(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 732/KOL/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Feb 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.732/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Alcove Construction Pvt. Ltd..........................................………...…..…Appellant ‘Ganpati’, 68/2, Harish Mukherjee Road, Bhowanipur, Kolkata-700025. [Pan: Aacca5779R] Vs. Ito, Ward-10(2), Kolkata..................................................…....…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. S. Gupta, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 13, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 22, 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 01.12.2022 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 Brought Our Attention To The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) To Submit That The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed In Limine Holding That The Same Was Barred By Limitation Because Of The Delay Of 42 Days In Filing The Appeal Before Him. The Ld. Counsel Has Submitted That The Aforesaid Observation

Section 250

M/S. S.K. Fintex Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-3(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 658/KOL/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Feb 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.658/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S S. K. Fintex Pvt. Ltd.........................................………...…..…Appellant 32/7, Sahapur Colony, New Alipore, Kolkata-700053. [Pan: Aadcs5718D] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(3), Kolkata............................................…....…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Smt. Khushaboo Rai, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 22, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 22, 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 21.09.2022 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. At The Outset, Ms. Khushaboo Rai, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Has Brought To Our Attention To The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) To Submit That The Same Is An Ex Parte Order. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Further Invited Our Attention To The Grounds Of Appeal To Submit That The Assessee Did Not Receive Any Notice Of Hearing From The Cit(A). That The Assessee Came To Know About Deficiency Letter & Three Notices Of Hearing Issued By The Cit(A) From The Appellate Order Only. That The

Section 250

M/S. 45 Bus Route Owner'S Welfare Association, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-33(5), Kolkata

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

ITA 603/KOL/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Feb 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.603/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S 45 Bus Route Owner Welfare Association...........…..........….…… Appellant 6, Lenin Sarani, 1St Floor, Kolkata-700059. [Pan: Aaaaz1946K] Vs. Ito, Ward-33(5), Kolkata...….....……........…................…...…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Swati Baid, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 08, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 22, 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 30.08.2022 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. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Invited Our Attention To The Impugned Assessment Order To Submit That The Same Is An Ex Parte Order. She Has Further Invited Our Attention To The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) To Submit That The Same Is Also Ex Parte Order. The Ld. Counsel Has Further Submitted That The Assessing Officer Had Made Impugned Additions On The Ground Of Unexplained Cash Deposits In The Bank Account Of The Assessee-Association. She Has

Section 250

Shri Rajesh Khandelwal, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(1), TDS, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 600/KOL/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Feb 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.600/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Rajesh Khandelwal………………………...........…..........….…… Appellant 146, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Bangar Building, Kolkata-700007. [Pan: Afjpk8394P] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Tds, Kolkata.....……........…................…...…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 08, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 22, 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 31.08.2022 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. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Taken Additional Legal Ground Pleading That The Impugned Order U/S 201(1A) Was Barred By Limitation. He In This Respect Has Relied Upon Section 201(3) Of The Act, As Applicable For The Assessment Year Under Consideration. The Provisions Of Section 201(3) Amended By Finance Act, 2012 With Retrospective Effect From 01.04.2010 Is Applicable Which Reads As Follows:

Section 200Section 201Section 201(1)Section 201(3)Section 250

M/S. Pdp Steels Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 698/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Feb 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 698/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Pdp Steels Ltd. Dcit, Cpc, Bengaluru C/O. M/S. Salarpuri Jajodia & Co. Vs 7, C.R. Avenue 3Rd Floor Kolkata - 700072 [Pan : Aabcp6726C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, Fca Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/02/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/02/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 25/11/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Ld. First Appellate Authority Dismissed The Appeal On Account Of Delay In Filing Of The Appeal & Issues On Merit Have Not Been Adjudicated. Further He Stated That The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Was On Account Of Reason That The Employee Mr. Madan Mohan Sahu, Who Received Such Order, Did Not Communicate To The Directors Of The Company. Soon Thereafter, He Travelled Outside For Official Job & Forgot To Communicate About The Receipt Of The Order U/S 143(1). Thus, Prayer Was Made For Condoning The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) & Direct The Ld. Cit(A) To Give An Opportunity To Plead For The Issues Raised On Merits In The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

M/S. Sethia Oil Industries Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 7(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 696/KOL/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Feb 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 696/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Sethia Oil Industries Limited D.C.I.T., Circle -7(1), Kolkata 5Th Floor, Room No. 505 Vs Diamond Heritage Building 16, Strand Road Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaecs1118E] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Fca Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/02/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/02/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 25/11/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Sole Issue Raised In The Instant Appeal Relates To Disallowance Of Commission Expenditure Of Rs.5,11,200/-. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Vehemently Argued Stating That The Notices Issued U/S 133(6) Of The Act Were Duly Served Upon The Respective Persons Receiving Commission From The Assessee Company. Sufficient Documentary Details Have Been Placed Including Pan Nos., Addresses, Bills For Raising Commission & Other Related Documents To Justify The Genuineness Of The Alleged Commission Expenditure Of Rs.5,11,200/-. On The Other Hand, The Ld. D/R Vehemently Argued Supporting The Orders Of The Lower Authorities.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, FCAFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 250

Sanjay Kumar, Bihar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Bongaigaon

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

ITA 158/GTY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati20 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 158/Gty/2020 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sanjay Kumar Acit, Circle-2, Begusarai Vs C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Suite 213, 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 7000069 [Pan : Aelpk7376Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri N.T. Sherpa, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/01/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/02/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – Guwahati-2, Guwahati, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 03/02/2020, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That The Appeal Is Time Barred By 113 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Petition For Condonation Of Delay Duly Explaining The Reasons For Delay Thereby. After Going Through The Same, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing The Appeal In Time. In View Of This, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted.

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.T. Sherpa, JCIT
Section 144Section 250

Income Tax Officer, Ward-Nagaon, Nagaon vs. Smt. Manumati Boro, Nagaon`

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 111/GTY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati20 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 111/Gty/2020 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ito, Ward- Nagaon Smt. Manumati Boro Vs M/S. Joy Fuel Station Dhing Road, Kawaimari Nagaon Assam - 782002 [Pan : Bqepb3815M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rahul Jain, Fca Revenue By : Shri N.T. Sherpa, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/01/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/02/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - Guwahati-1, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 28/02/2020, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.2,39,42,814/- As Undisclosed Sales & Estimated Profit Of The Outside Book Sales At 3.9% Of Rs.2,39,42,814/- (I.E Rs.9,33,770/-). 2. That The Ld Cit (A) Has Not Considered The Fact That The Assessee Has Unrecorded Sales Of Rs.2,39,42,814/- Which Has Been Duly Reflected In Her Daily Sales Register With Identification Mark Jfs/I/1, Impounded During The Course Of Survey U/S 133A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Conducted By The Department & Has Failed To Furnished Any Supporting Documents To Explain The Reason For The Difference In The Sales As Per Her Daily Sales Register & Sales As Per Her Books Of Accounts. Hence The Impugned Order Of The Ld. Cit (A) Is Liable To Be Quashed & The Order Of The Assessing Officer Be Restored. 3. The Ld Cit (A) Has Erred In Accepting The Undisclosed Sales As Turnover & Estimated Income @3.9% On The Under Reported Sales.

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Shri N.T. Sherpa, JCIT
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 250