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

Jiwanram Sheoduttrai Industries Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-2(1)(TDS), Kolkata

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

ITA 377/KOL/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jan 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.377/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jiwanram Sheoduttrai Industries Pvt. Ltd..........................………...…..…Appellant 30D, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Park Street, Kolkata-700016. [Pan:Aaacj7420L] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1) (Tds), Kolkata …..…...................................…....…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Saumen Dutta, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 29, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 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 29.04.2022 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. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated The Action Of The Cit(A) In Upholding The Demand Raised By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Non-Deduction Of Tds U/S 201(1) Of The Act & Thereby, Holding The Assessee As Assessee In Default & Thereby, Raising The Tax Demand Of Rs.82,990/- & Interest Of Rs.78,008/- U/S 201(1A) Of The Act.

Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250

Yashwant Kumar Daga, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-30, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 263/KOL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A No.263/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Yashwant Kumar Daga……………....................................................……Appellant Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 3Rd Floor, 7, Chittaranjan Avenue, Kolkata-700072. [Pan: Afypd7477F] Vs. Acit, Circle-30, Kolkata…..…....…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Jhajharia & Sujoy Sen, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 04, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 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 06.12.2021 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. The Assessee, In This Appeal, Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That In View Of Facts & Circumstances That Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Not Quashing / Cancelling The Order / Part Of Order U/S 154 By Ao For Which Ao Even Did Not Issue Any Notice To Appellant & Hence Such Action Of Cit(A) Is Bad In Law & It May Be Held Accordingly.

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

Jagdamba Ispat Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward _ 3(3), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 432/KOL/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.431 & 432/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Jagdamba Ispat Pvt. Ltd…………………...........................………...…..…Appellant Room No.A, 1St Floor, 1C, Jorabagan Street, M.D. Road, Kolkata-700006. [Pan: Aabcj4827C] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(3) , Kolkata…….. …..…...................................…....…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Fca & Amit Agrawal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 29, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 10, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Two Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 31.05.2022 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’). Ita No.431/Kol/2022 Is Against The Confirmations Of Quantum Additions Made By The Assessing Officer, Whereas, The Ita No.432/Kol/2022 Is Against The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Which In Consequential Of The Aforesaid Quantum Addition Made By The Assessing Officer & Confirmed By The Cit(A). We, Therefore, Firstly Take Up The Assessee’S Appeal Relating To The Quantum Additions.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Jagdamba Ispat Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(3), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 431/KOL/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.431 & 432/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Jagdamba Ispat Pvt. Ltd…………………...........................………...…..…Appellant Room No.A, 1St Floor, 1C, Jorabagan Street, M.D. Road, Kolkata-700006. [Pan: Aabcj4827C] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(3) , Kolkata…….. …..…...................................…....…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Fca & Amit Agrawal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 29, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 10, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Two Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 31.05.2022 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’). Ita No.431/Kol/2022 Is Against The Confirmations Of Quantum Additions Made By The Assessing Officer, Whereas, The Ita No.432/Kol/2022 Is Against The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Which In Consequential Of The Aforesaid Quantum Addition Made By The Assessing Officer & Confirmed By The Cit(A). We, Therefore, Firstly Take Up The Assessee’S Appeal Relating To The Quantum Additions.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

ITO, Ward-10(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Nps Cold Storage Pvt Ltd, Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 90/KOL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.90/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ito, Ward-10(2), Kolkata..............................................................……Appellant Vs. M/S Nps Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd…..................……........……...…..…..Respondent 8, Raja Ram Mohan Roy Road, Hakimpara Siliguri, 734001. [Pan: Aabcn5588N] Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 01, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 9, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 16.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, 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 Revenue Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Cit(A) In Quashing The Assessment Order Holding The Same Is Null & Void Ab Initio Being Passed By The Assessing Officer Having No Jurisdiction Over The Case. 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Address/Registered Office Of The Assessee Since Beginning Is Situated At Hakimpara, Siliguri, West Bengal. That The Assessing

Section 120Section 143(2)Section 250