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

K K Ghosh & K M Ghosh, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-28(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 669/KOL/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Feb 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.669/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 K K Ghosh & K M Ghosh.....................................................................…..…Appellant 2, Izzatulla Lane, West Bengal – 700033. [Pan: Aadft3260E] Vs. Ito, Ward-28(1), Kolkata.…..….............................................…....…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 17, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 08, 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 27.12.2021 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. No One Has Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Despite Notice, Therefore, We Proceed To Decide The Appeal After Hearing The Ld. Dr. 3. A Perusal Of The Grounds Of Appeal Would Reveal That The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Cit(A) In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Being Barred By Limitation. 4. It Was Pleaded Before The Cit(A) That Due The Health Issues, The Partners Of The Assessee-Firm Could Not Operate Their Business & Further That They Did Not Receive The Impugned Order Of The Assessing

Section 250

Purulia Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Purulia vs. ACIT, Cir. 3(2), Purulia

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 175/KOL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.175/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Purulia Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .....................................................…..…Appellant Ranchi Road, Purulia-723101. [Pan: Aaajp0148E] Vs. Acit, Circle-3(2), Purulia.…..….............................................…....…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri M. Goenka, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 19, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 08, 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 04.02.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Asansol [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Learned Cit(Appeal) Asansol Erred In Rejecting Application Under Section 154 On The Ground That No Apparent Mistake In Records. 2. That Mistake Of Law Is Mistake Rectifiable As Per Decision Of The Honourable Supreme Court In The Case M. K. Venkatarchram Vs Bombay Dying & Mgg Co Ltd. 1958 Itr 143 (Sc) 3. That The Finance Bill No. (2) 2014 Reduced The Disallowance Of Expenditure Where No Tds Has Been Deducted To 30% Instead Of 100% & Effective From Assessment Year 2015-16

Section 154Section 250Section 40

ITO, Ward-5(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Panchkoti Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 23/KOL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.23/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata...................................................………...…..…Appellant Vs. M/S Panchkoti Enterprises Pvt. Ltd …..…....….................…....…..…..Respondent 86, Canning Street, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aagcp4898L] Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 08, 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 19.08.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-7, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Department Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Cit(A) In Deleting The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer In Respect Of Share Capital & Premium Received By The Assessee Holding That The Assessee Had Failed To Establish The Identity, Creditworthiness Of The Share Subscribers & Genuineness Of Transaction. 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Invited Our Attention To The Relevant Part Of The Order Of Cit(A) To Submit That The Ld.

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

DCIT, Cir-10(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Skyscraper Projects Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 2439/KOL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A No.2439/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit, Circle-10(2), Kolkata.......................................................................….. Appellant Vs. M/S Skyscraper Projects Pvt. Ltd....................................................…… …. Respondent 53B, Townshend Road, Kolkata - 700025. [Pan: Aajcs1656G] Appearances By: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 31, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 07, 2023 आदेश / Order मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद"य "वारा / Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2007-08 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 19.08.2019 Which Is Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Framed U/S 147/143(3) Of The Act Dated 30.03.2015. 2. The Delay In Filing Of This Appeal Is 3 Days. In The Course Of Hearing, The Revenue Was Asked To Give Reasons For Such Delay & The Same Were Duly Appraised By The Ld. Dr & The Same Are Found To Be Reasonable. We Therefore, Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Adjudication. 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

Vibrant Infocom Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1), Kolkata

In the result, the captioned appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 575/KOL/2022[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.575/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Vibrant Infocom Pvt. Ltd.....…..........….........................................…… Appellant Flat No.4E, 4Th Floor, Mahendra Tower, 43A, Tollygunge Circular Road, Kolkata- 700053. [Pan: Aadcv8222B] Vs. Dcit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata...….....……........…................…...…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 06, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 06, 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 18.08.2022 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 Director Of The Assessee-Company Has Filed A Letter Dated 03.02.2023 Seeking Permission Of The Bench To Withdraw This Appeal Filed By The Assessee. Since The Ld. Dr Has No Objection In This Regard, The Permission As Sought By The Assessee Is Granted & This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Dismissed As Withdrawn.

Section 250