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

Shri Rajeev Nataraj Legal Heir of Late Shri P Nataraj, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-10(2), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 848/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Rajeev Nataraj, L/H Of Late Shri P Nataraj, No. 63, 1St Cross, The Income Tax Udaya Nagar, Officer, Chikkalsandra, Off Ward 10(2), Uttarahalli Road, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 061. Pan: Ahapn9475D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy, Ar : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 11/02/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-3, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2008-09 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax [Appeals] U/S 250 Of The Act & That Of The Order Of Assessment Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer Under Section 143[3] R/W 147 Of The Act To The Extent Which Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Order Of Assessment Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer Under Section 143[3] R.W.S 147 Of The Act Is Bad In Law Since The Mandatory Conditions As Envisaged

For Appellant: Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy, AR
Section 143Section 234Section 250Section 54

Shri Ritum Jain, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-3(2), Kolkata

In the result, the captioned appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 466/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Ritum Jain Dcit, Cc-3(2), Kolkata 4A, Metro Towers, 1, Ho Chi Vs. Minh Sarani, Kolkata – 700 071. Pan: Actpj 4441 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri A.K. Tulsyan, Ar Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Acit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.03.2022 O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.09.2021 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] 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 Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Ao In Rejecting The Assessee’S Rectification Petition Filed U/S 154 Claiming The Subsidy Received By The Assessee As Industrial Promotion Assistance (Ipa) From The State Govt, Under West Bengal Industrial Promotion (Assistance To Industrial Units) Scheme, As Capital Receipt In Place Of Revenue Receipt. The Claim Of The Assessee Was Rejected By The Ld. Ao As Well As The Ld. Cit(A) On The Ground That The Same Cannot Be Claimed By The Assessee In The Rectification Petition U/S 154 Since The Same Was Not Claimed In The Return Of Income Filed By The Assessee In View Of The Decision Of Hon’Ble Apex Court In Case Of Goetze India Ltd. Vs Cit In 157 Taxman 1. The Ld. Cit(A) Did Not Consider The Fact That The Assessee’S Case Is Squarely Covered By Judicial Decisions On Similar Facts In The Case Of Sharda Cropchem Ltd. Vs Dcit In 71 Itr (Trib) 141 & Dcit & Kashmir Steel Rolling Mills In 130/Asr/2014. Therefore, The Action Of 2 Shri Ritum Jain A.Y. 2014-15 The Ld. Cit(A) In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee Is Unjustified & The Claim Needs To Be Allowed.

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, ACIT, DR
Section 139(5)Section 153ASection 154Section 250

D.C.I.T.Circle-40, Kolkata vs. M/S Raj Coke Industries, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1025/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. Nos.1015 To 1017/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 To 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-40, Kolkata..…….…..…...............……........……...…..….. ...................Appellant Vs. M/S Sethi Coke Industries.............………….……………….……...........................Respondent 1/1A, Biplabi Anukul Chandra Street, Kolkata-700072. [Pan:Aahfs4970K] I.T.A. Nos.1018 To 1020/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 To 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-40, Kolkata..…….…..…...............……........……...…..….. ...................Appellant Vs. M/S Shiva Coke Industries.............………….……………….……...........................Respondent 1/1A, Biplabi Anukul Chandra Street, Kolkata-700072. [Pan:Ablfs4254N] I.T.A. Nos.1023 To 1025/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 To 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-40, Kolkata..…….…..…...............……........……...…..….. ...................Appellant Vs. M/S Raj Coke Industries.............………….……………….……..............................Respondent 1/1A, Biplabi Anukul Chandra Street, Kolkata-700072. [Pan:Aaifr7991M] Appearances By: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Bisweswar Ghosh, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 15, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 30, 2022 Order

Section 250Section 80I

D.C.I.T.Circle-40, Kolkata vs. M/S Raj Coke Industries, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1024/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. Nos.1015 To 1017/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 To 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-40, Kolkata..…….…..…...............……........……...…..….. ...................Appellant Vs. M/S Sethi Coke Industries.............………….……………….……...........................Respondent 1/1A, Biplabi Anukul Chandra Street, Kolkata-700072. [Pan:Aahfs4970K] I.T.A. Nos.1018 To 1020/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 To 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-40, Kolkata..…….…..…...............……........……...…..….. ...................Appellant Vs. M/S Shiva Coke Industries.............………….……………….……...........................Respondent 1/1A, Biplabi Anukul Chandra Street, Kolkata-700072. [Pan:Ablfs4254N] I.T.A. Nos.1023 To 1025/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 To 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-40, Kolkata..…….…..…...............……........……...…..….. ...................Appellant Vs. M/S Raj Coke Industries.............………….……………….……..............................Respondent 1/1A, Biplabi Anukul Chandra Street, Kolkata-700072. [Pan:Aaifr7991M] Appearances By: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Bisweswar Ghosh, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 15, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 30, 2022 Order

Section 250Section 80I

D.C.I.T.Circle-40, Kolkata vs. M/S Raj Coke Industries, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1023/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. Nos.1015 To 1017/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 To 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-40, Kolkata..…….…..…...............……........……...…..….. ...................Appellant Vs. M/S Sethi Coke Industries.............………….……………….……...........................Respondent 1/1A, Biplabi Anukul Chandra Street, Kolkata-700072. [Pan:Aahfs4970K] I.T.A. Nos.1018 To 1020/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 To 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-40, Kolkata..…….…..…...............……........……...…..….. ...................Appellant Vs. M/S Shiva Coke Industries.............………….……………….……...........................Respondent 1/1A, Biplabi Anukul Chandra Street, Kolkata-700072. [Pan:Ablfs4254N] I.T.A. Nos.1023 To 1025/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 To 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-40, Kolkata..…….…..…...............……........……...…..….. ...................Appellant Vs. M/S Raj Coke Industries.............………….……………….……..............................Respondent 1/1A, Biplabi Anukul Chandra Street, Kolkata-700072. [Pan:Aaifr7991M] Appearances By: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Bisweswar Ghosh, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 15, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 30, 2022 Order

Section 250Section 80I

D.C.I.T., Circle-40, Kolkata vs. M/S Shiva Coke Industries, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1020/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. Nos.1015 To 1017/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 To 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-40, Kolkata..…….…..…...............……........……...…..….. ...................Appellant Vs. M/S Sethi Coke Industries.............………….……………….……...........................Respondent 1/1A, Biplabi Anukul Chandra Street, Kolkata-700072. [Pan:Aahfs4970K] I.T.A. Nos.1018 To 1020/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 To 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-40, Kolkata..…….…..…...............……........……...…..….. ...................Appellant Vs. M/S Shiva Coke Industries.............………….……………….……...........................Respondent 1/1A, Biplabi Anukul Chandra Street, Kolkata-700072. [Pan:Ablfs4254N] I.T.A. Nos.1023 To 1025/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 To 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-40, Kolkata..…….…..…...............……........……...…..….. ...................Appellant Vs. M/S Raj Coke Industries.............………….……………….……..............................Respondent 1/1A, Biplabi Anukul Chandra Street, Kolkata-700072. [Pan:Aaifr7991M] Appearances By: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Bisweswar Ghosh, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 15, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 30, 2022 Order

Section 250Section 80I

D.C.I.T., Circle-40, Kolkata vs. M/S Shiva Coke Industries, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1019/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. Nos.1015 To 1017/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 To 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-40, Kolkata..…….…..…...............……........……...…..….. ...................Appellant Vs. M/S Sethi Coke Industries.............………….……………….……...........................Respondent 1/1A, Biplabi Anukul Chandra Street, Kolkata-700072. [Pan:Aahfs4970K] I.T.A. Nos.1018 To 1020/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 To 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-40, Kolkata..…….…..…...............……........……...…..….. ...................Appellant Vs. M/S Shiva Coke Industries.............………….……………….……...........................Respondent 1/1A, Biplabi Anukul Chandra Street, Kolkata-700072. [Pan:Ablfs4254N] I.T.A. Nos.1023 To 1025/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 To 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-40, Kolkata..…….…..…...............……........……...…..….. ...................Appellant Vs. M/S Raj Coke Industries.............………….……………….……..............................Respondent 1/1A, Biplabi Anukul Chandra Street, Kolkata-700072. [Pan:Aaifr7991M] Appearances By: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Bisweswar Ghosh, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 15, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 30, 2022 Order

Section 250Section 80I