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

Sri Balaji Coke Industries, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. -40, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 252/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2014-15 Sri Balaji Coke Industries Dcit, Circle-40, Kolkata 1/1A, Biplabi Anukul Vs. Chandra Street, 5Th Floor, Kolkata – 700072. Pan: Abafs 5400 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Rakesh Dubey, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.06.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.04.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Against The Law & Facts Of The Case. 2. That In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Wrongly Dismissed The Grounds Of Appeal No. 2 Of Your Assessee Which Was Taken Before Him Wherein Your Assessee Challenged The Order Of Ld. A.O About Addition Of Rs.8.95,771/- On Account Of Provision Of Entry Lax. On Ground That Ld. A.O Has Rejected The Books Of Accounts Stating That Entire Transactions Were Lake & Bogus Hence Amount Of Rs. 8.95,771/- Is Also Fake & Bogus In Account Of Sri Balaji Coke Industries. 3. That Your Assessee Had Been In Appeal Before Cit(A)-12/Kolkata Who Passed The Order On 27.02.2019 & Deleted The Entire Additions Hence The Above Addition Of Rs. 8.95,771/- Is Liable To Delete On Grounds Of Fake & Bogus As Made By Ld. A.O In Original Order. 4. That The Addition Of Rs. 8,95.771/- Is Liable To Delete On The Basis Of Order As Passed By Cit(A)-12/Kolkata On 27.02.2019. 2 Sri Balaji Coke Industries A.Y. 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Dubey, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jayanta Khanra, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263