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

Pravin Laxmichand Chheda, Mumbai vs. ACIT 24(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 509/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshri Pravin Laxmichand Vs. Acit – 24(3) Chheda Room No. 413, 4Th 302, Aavishkar Society, Floor, Piramal Sv Road, Irla Bridge Chambers, Parel Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400012 Mumbai – 400058 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpc1278P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Yogesh Thar. Ar Respondent By : Mr.Naveen Kumar. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 36, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. (A) The Learned Cit (Appeals) Erred In Law & Facts In Confirming The Action Of The Learned Assessing Officer Of Assessing The Loan Taken From Sadguru Krupa Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (Herein Referred As "Company") On 05.05.2013 Of Pravin Laxmichand Chheda., Mumbai. Rs.25,00,000/- As Deemed Dividend U/S 2(22)(E) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. (B) The Learned Cit (Appeals) Failed To Appreciate The Fact That The Company Did Not Have Accumulated Profits As On The Date On Which The Loan Was Advanced. (C) The Learned Cit (Appeals) Erred In Law By Confirming The Manner Of Computation Of Accumulated Profits Adopted By The Learned Assessing Officer. (D) The Learned Cit (Appeals) Erred In Law By Not Appreciating The Fact That The Company Had Followed The Principles Of Revenue Recognition Laid Down In Accounting Standard 9 Issued By Icai. (E) The Learned Cit (Appeals) Erred In Law In Relying On The Statement Of Mr. Dllip Porwal Without Giving Your Appellant The Opportunity To Cross-Examine Him. (F) Your Appellant Prays That The Additions Made U/S 2(22)(E) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Is Against The Provisions Of Law & Against The Principals Of Natural Justice & May Please Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Mr.Yogesh Thar. ARFor Respondent: Mr.Naveen Kumar. Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

Fives Stein India Projects Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 8, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 410/KOL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.410/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Fives Stein India Projects (P) Ltd.................……….………………….……Appellant Saberwal House, 55B, Mirza Ghalib Street, 5Th Floor, W.B. – 700016. [Pan: Aadcs7768M] Vs. Dcit, Circle-8, Kolkata........…….…..…...............……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anup Sinha, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Amol Kamat, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 23, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 03, 2022 Hearing Through Video Conferencing Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 11.08.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Brief Facts Are That The Assessee Had Filed Its Return Of Income For The Relevant Year On 28.09.2010 Declaring Total Income At Rs.4,14,00,347/- Under The Normal Provisions Of The Act. In The Aforesaid Return Of Income, The Assessee Had Offered Suo Motu Disallowance Under Section 43B Of The Act Amounting To Rs.10,024/-, Rs.18,27,770/- & Rs.65,33,395/- Towards Service Tax, Bonus & Leave Encashment Respectively On Provision Basis. In The Said Return, The Assessee Had Claimed Deduction Under Section 43B Of The Act Amounting To Rs.5,06,300/-, Rs.15,03,060/- & Rs.66,58,305/- Towards Gratuity, Bonus & Leave Encashment Respectively On Payment Basis. Subsequently, The Assessee Noticed That It Had Made Certain Inadvertent Mistakes While Offering Suo Motu Disallowance & Claiming Deduction Under Section 43B Of The Act. Accordingly, During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 251Section 43B

Todi Securities (P) Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 644/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A No.644/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Todi Securities (P) Ltd……….…………………..............................……Appellant 1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, 1St Floor, R No.12, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabct4191R] Vs. Dcit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata........….…..…...............……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 3, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 3, 2022 Hearing Through Video Conferencing Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.03.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Assessee Has Availed The Benefit Of Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. He, Therefore, Prays That The Appeal Of The Assessee May Be Dismissed As Withdrawn. The Ld. Dr Has Not Objected To The Same. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Hereby Dismissed As Withdrawn. 3. In The Result, The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Dismissed As Withdrawn. Kolkata, The 3Rd March, 2022. [Manish Borad] [Sanjay Garg]

Section 250

M/S Malcom Distributors Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO Ward-7(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 539/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.539/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Malcom Distributors Pvt. Ltd.................……….………………….……Appellant 2A, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Commerce House, 7Th Floor, Room No.1, Kolkata-700013. [Pan: Aahcm7110P] Vs. Ito, Ward-7(1), Kolkata........…….…..…...............……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manju Lata Shukla, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 23, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 03, 2022 Hearing Through Video Conferencing Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.01.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. As Per The Note Of The Registry, The Appeal Is Time Barred By 922 Days. The Assessee Invited Our Attention To The Copy Of The Impugned Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) To Submit That The Assessee Came To Know About The Passing Of The Aforesaid Order Only When He Received Appeal Effect Notice From The Assessing Officer, The Assessee Immediately Filed An Application To Obtain Certified Copy Of The Order On 15.06.2020 Which Was Received By The Assessee In The Month Of September 2020, The Assessee Thereafter Filed The Present Appeal On 16.10.2020. A Separate Affidavit Reiterating The Above Submissions Have Also Been Filed By The Assessee. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Also Invited Our Attention To The Impugned Assessment Order To Submit That The Same Is An Ex Parte Order

Section 144Section 250

Kanchanben Kiritbhai Patel L/H of Jeliben Gopalbhai Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, WD.2(3)(6), Surat

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

ITA 223/SRT/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat02 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.223/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Kanchanben Kirtibhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(6), L/H Of Jeliben Gopalbhai Patel, At Surat. & Post Kahan Faliyu, Bhesan Tal Choriyasi, Surat-394510. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Boxpp9535H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Revenue By: Ms Anupama Singla, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 01/03/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), [In Short ‘Ld. Cit(A)’], Delhi In Appeal No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021-22/1036529207(1) Dated 22.10.2021, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Sapnesh Sheth, CAFor Respondent: Ms Anupama Singla, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250