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

Warner Multimedia Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-8(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 239/KOL/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 239/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Warner Multimedia Limited Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(2), C/O B.C. Purohit & Co. Kolkata Vs 2, G.C. Avenue 2Nd Floor, Room No. 5 Commerce House Kolkata - 700013 Pan : Aabcc0225H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Miraj D. Shah, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/09/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 12/03/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts Of The Case By Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Appellant & Confirmed The Addition Of Rs.2,85,500/- On The Ground Of Non-Submission Of Details Regarding Payment Of The Above Mentioned Amount To Different Professionals Which Is Not Correct As No Fixation Notice Either By Offline Mode Or By Online Mode Was Received By The Appellant & Thereby Depriving The Appellant Of Being Heard. 2. For That The Observations & Contentions Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac While Passing Order U/S. 250 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 By Not Giving Your Appellant The Chance Of Being Heard On The Grounds Which Are Not Correct. 3. For That The Appellant Craves Leave To Adduce, Modify & Or Alter The Grounds At Or Before Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40

M/S. Ssjv Projects Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1)(3), Bengaluru

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

ITA 866/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Ssjv Projects Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ground Floor, No.21/6, Ward – 6[1][3], Craig Park Layout, M. G. Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 001. Pan : Aaacu 3698 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. K. R. Narayan, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.07.2022 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, In Relation To Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Ao Passed The Order Of Assessment Under Section 143(3) Dated 31.03.2016. Against The Additions Made In The Said Order, Assessee Filed An Appeal Before The Cit(A) – 6, Bengaluru Who Disposed Off The Appeal By An Order Dated 09.02.2018. Against The Said Aforesaid Orders Of The Cit(A), Assesse Filed Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Itat. The Hon’Ble Itat In Ita Nos.2195 & 2196/Bang/2018, Order Dated 24.02.2018, Remanded The Matter To The Cit(A) For Fresh Consideration. Page 2 Of 5

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. R. Narayan, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 250