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

Brainspace Management and Skill Education Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-12(2), Kolkata

ITA 364/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.364/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Brainspace Management & Skill Education Ltd.....…..........….…… Appellant 234/3A, Ajc Bose Road, Fmc Fortuna, Unit A4, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata- 700020. [Pan: Aaecb8760D] Vs. Ito, Ward-12(2), Kolkata...….....……........…................…...…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Rajeev Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 12, 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 02.11.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 15, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘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. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant Without Giving Adequate Opportunity Of Being Heard & In That View Of The Matter The Order Of The Cit (A) Deserves To Be Set Aside. 2. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal On The Ground Of Non Compliance To The

Section 250

Oswald Pereira, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 689/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2016-17 Shri. Oswal Pereira, Vs. Ito, No. 404 Sterling Apartments, Ward – 5(3)(1), Papanna Street, St. Marks Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 001, Karnataka. Pan : Ahhpp 7200 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. H. Guruswamy, Itp Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 31.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.02.2023 O R D E R This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.07.2021 Of Nfac, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. There Is A Delay Of 69 Days In Filing The Appeal By The Assessee. It Has Been Submitted In An Application For Condonation Of Delay That The Passing Of The Ex-Parte Order By The Nfac Was Not Known To The Assessee & He Came To Know About The Same Only When He Received Show Cause Notice Under Section 274 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’), Dated 01.08.2022, For Imposing Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act. The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is After Excluding The Period During Which The Covid-19 Pandemic Was Prevalent & The Period Which Has To Be Excluded Owing To The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court On The Issue Of Excluding Period Of Delay During Covid Period For The Purpose Page 2 Of 3

For Appellant: Shri. H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Vivek Tracom Private Limited, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-5(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 2636/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata01 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 2636/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vivek Tracom Private Limited I.T.O., Ward - 5(4), Kolkata 32, Ezra Street Vs Kolkata - 700001 Pan : Aaacv8670J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25/01/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/02/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajpal Yadav: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -10, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 29/11/2019, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. In This Case, The Assessee Has Filed An Application Seeking Withdrawal Of This Appeal On The Ground That The Appeal Has Been Settled Under The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The Assessee Has Duly Filed The Copy Of The Certificate In Form 5 For Full & Final Settlement Of Tax Arrear Under Section 5(2) R.W.S. 6 Of The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. 3. Keeping In View These Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Especially The Fact That The Assessee Has Duly Complied With The Necessary Requirements Under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, Permission As Sought By The Assessee Is Granted & This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Dismissed As Withdrawn. 4. In The Result, Appeal Of The Assessee Is Dismissed As Withdrawn. Order Pronounced In The Court On 1St February, 2023 At Kolkata. (Rajesh Kumar) Vice-Kolkata, Dated 01/02/2023 *Sc Srps

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT
Section 250Section 5(2)