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

Shreemati Manisha Dubey, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Raipur

The appeal of the appellant is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 126/RPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. : 126/Rpr/2019 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-2015 Smt Manisha Dubey Beside Sahu Saw Mull, Opp Mandi Gate, Pandri Tarai, Raipur (C.G.)-492001 Pan : Actpd 1233 H . . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S Income Tax Officer-4(3), Raipur Central Revenue Building, Raipur (C.G.) . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Nilesh Jain Revenue By : Shri G. N. Singh सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 20/04/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 20/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Jamlappa D Battull, A.M; The Present Appeal Filed By The Appellant Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)-Ii, Raipur [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 01/02/2019 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-4(3), Raipur [For Short “Ao”] Dt. 24/03/2017 Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act, For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2014-2015

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh JainFor Respondent: Shri G. N. Singh
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Narayanpet Abdulla, Adoni vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Adoni

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

ITA 42/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2017-18 Narayanpet Abdulla, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Adoni – 518301. Ward – 1, Pan : Akvpa5343D. Adoni. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Mrs. S. Sandhya. Revenue By: Shri T. Sunil Goutam. Date Of Hearing: 19.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.04.2022 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Appeal Of Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 29.12.2021 For The Ay. 2017-18 On The Following Grounds : “1. The Order Of The Learned Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Is Errenoues Both On Facts & In Law 2. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Deciding The Appeal Without Providing Opportunity To The Appellant. 3. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Treating The Deposits Made During The Demonetization Period Of Rs.30,32,000/- As The Income Of The Appellant Assessable U/S 69A Of The I.T. Act. 4. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.30,32,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 68 Of The I.T. Act Without Considering The Fact That The Said Amount Represents The Sale Price Received On Sale Of Eggs During The Demonetization Period. 5. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,08,000/- On The Ground That It Represents The Unexplained Expenditure.”

For Appellant: Mrs. S. SandhyaFor Respondent: Shri T. Sunil Goutam
Section 250Section 68Section 69A