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

Mohammad Sharique, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-32(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 592/KOL/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2022AY 2014-2015

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 592/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mohammad Sharique Income Tax Officer, Ward-32(1), Kolkata 64, Mozaffar Ahmed Street Vs Ripon Street Kolkata - 700016 [Pan : Bjxps2070R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Purbayan Basu, Advocate Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/12/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/12/2022 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. 15/09/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That In The Facts The Order U/S 250 Passed By The Ld Cit Appeal (Nfac) Was Wrong, Unjustified & Contrary To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. The Ld. Cit Erred To Confirm The Addition Of Rs.4175060 Without Any Speaking Order On Its Merit Is Erroneous, Arbitrary & Bad In Law. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Modify Or Delete Any Grounds At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Purbayan Basu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, D/R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

Ajit Vasant Deshpande, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 2 (2), Pune

ITA 639/PUN/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 639/Pun/2021 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ajit Vasant Deshpande, 701, Aquila Life Style, Ramnagar Colony, Bavdhan, Pune – 411 021 Pan :Amcpd9015G . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru. [Ito, Ward-2(3), Pune] . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances : Shri Suhas P Bora (For Dharan V Gandhi) Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 01/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01/12/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2017-18 Is Assailed Against The First Appellate Order I.E. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short “Cit(A) /Nfac”] Dt. 13/10/2021 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 [For Short “The Act”] Which Emanated Out Of Assessment Order Dt.15/12/2019 Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Act By Cpc, Bengaluru [For Short “Ao”] Vide Din Cpc/1718/V2/1903605865. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 4

For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(1)Section 194DSection 250

Kakaso Balgonda Patil, Kolhapur vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Range - 1, Kolhapur

ITA 470/PUN/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 470/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-2010 Shri Kakaso Balgonda Patil Arihant, Ambilane,A/P Chinchwad, Kolhapur - 416119. . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Awdpp7326F बनाम / V/S. Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range-1, Kolhapur द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : None For Assessee Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde. सपिवधईकीतधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 01/12/2022 घोर्णधकीतधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01/12/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal Of The Assessee Is Agitated Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Appeals-1), Kolhapur [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 17/12/2018 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which In Turn Ascended From The Order Of Income Tax Officer-1(2), Kolhapur [For Short “Ao”] Dt. 29/12/2016 Passed U/S 271D Of The Act, For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2009-2010. 2. At The Outset, The Learned Departmental Representative [For Short “Dr”] Referring To Undated Withdrawal Application Received

For Appellant: None for AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 250Section 271DSection 5(2)