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

Cigniti Technologies Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 527/HYD/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Feb 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Cigniti Technologies Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad – 500082. Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aabcc1969J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao. Revenue By: Shri Sunil Gowtham. Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.02.2022 O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M. This Assessee’S Appeal For A.Y. 2019-20 Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi’S Order Dated 09.11.2021 In Case No.Itba/ Nfac/S/250/2021-22/1036793544(1) Involving Proceedings U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short, ‘The Act’]. 2. Coming To The Sole Substantive Issue Of Esi/Pf Disallowance Of Rs.52,75,976/- Made In Both The Lower Proceedings, The Assessee’S & Revenue’S Plea(S) Before Us Are That The Same Had Been Paid Before The Due Date Of Filing Sec.139(1) Return & After The Due Date Prescribed In The Corresponding Statutes; Respectively. We Notice In This Factual Backdrop That The Legislature Has Not Only Incorporated Necessary Amendment In Sections 36(1)(Va) As Well As U/S. 43B Vide Finance Act, 2021 To This Effect But Also The Cbdt Has Issued Memorandum Of Explanation That The Same Applies W.E.F. 01-04-2021. It Is Further Not An Issue That The Foregoing Legislative Amendments Have Proposed Employers’ Contribution / Disallowance U/S.43B As Against Employee’S Contribution U/S.36(Va) Of The Act; Respectively. However, Keeping In Mind The Fact That The Same Has Been Clarified To Be Applicable Only With Prospective Effect From 01- 04-2021, We Hold That The Impugned Disallowance Is Not Sustainable In View Of All These Latest Developments. The Impugned Esi/Pf Disallowance Is Deleted Therefore.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Gowtham
Section 139(1)Section 250Section 36Section 43B

Suman Kar, Durgapur vs. ITO, WD-2(3), Dugapur, Durgapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 128/KOL/2016[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Feb 2022AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.128/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Suman Kar.............................................. .........................................……….……Appellant 1A/5, Akbar Road, A Zone Durgapur-713204. [Pan: Alhpk7273P] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(3), Durgapur..……….…..…...............……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 08, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 08, 2022 Hearing Through Video Conferencing Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.11.2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Durgapur [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act(Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. No One Has Put In Appearance On Behalf Of The Assessee Despite Notice & Despite Telephonic Intimation To The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee, Shri Mihir Bandhopadhyay On His Mobile No.9831024445. It Is Further Noted From The Record That Earlier Also, The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed By This Tribunal For Non-Prosecution Vide Order Dated 31.01.2018. However, The Same Was Restored Vide Order Dated 09.04.2021. Today Again Despite Notice & Despite Telephonic Intimation, No One Has Put In Appearance On Behalf Of The Assessee/Appellant. Therefore, We Proceed To Decide The Present Appeal After Going Through The Record & After Hearing The Ld. Dr. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 147Section 250