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

I.T.O., Ward-1(1), Kolkata vs. Wyz Games Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 287/KOL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.287/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ito, Ward-1(1), Kolkata……..……….…..….........…..........……...…..….. Appellant Vs. Wyz Games Pvt. Ltd..............................................…………………….… Respondent H.No.15, Basappa Road, Shanthi Road, Bengaluru-560027. [Pan:Aabcw3168M] Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 03, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 03, 2022 Hearing Through Video Conferencing Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 29.11.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Kolkata [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 Despite Notice On Behalf Of The Assessee. Therefore, We Proceed To Decide The Appeal After Hearing The Ld. Dr. 3. The Revenue In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. "That On The Fact & Circumstances Of The Case & Law, The The Ld. Cit(A) Had Erred In Granting Relief To The Assessee On Account Of Unexplained Expenses Amounting To Rs. 1,58,66,065/- Disallowed By The Ao During Assessment. 2 "That On The Fact & Circumstances Of The Case & Law, The The Ld. Cit(A) Had Erred In Granting Relief To The Assessee On Account Of Unexplained Commission Amounting To Rs.53,42,152/- Disallowed By The Ao During Assessment. 3 "That On The Fact & Circumstances Of The Case & Law, The The Ld. Cit(A) Had Erred In Granting Relief To The Assessee On Account Of Unexplained Salary, Wages & Bonus Amounting To 44,35,888/- Disallowed By The Ao During Assessment.

Section 250

Uniworth Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 11(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1772/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.1772/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Uniworth Limited......................................................…………………….……Appellant 4B, Rawdon Chambers, 11A, Sarojini Naidu Sarani, Kolkata-700017. [Pan: Aaacw2805Q] Vs. Dcit, Circle-11(2), Kolkata…………….…..….........…........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 03, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 03, 2022 Hearing Through Video Conferencing Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.05.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata [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 Despite Notice On Behalf Of The Assessee. Therefore, We Proceed To Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee On Merits After Hearing The Ld. Dr. 3. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Upholding The Disallowance Of Rs.2,76,37,683/- Out Of The Total Disallowance Of Rs.3,00,29,021/- In Respect Of Brokerage & Commission. He Was Wrong In Observing That These Are Not Ascertained Liability. The Disallowance Made By The Ld. A.O & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) Is Wrong, Unjustified & Misconceived.”

Section 250

All India Liquid Bulk Impoerters & Exporters Asssociation, Mumbai vs. ADIT(E)-II(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1604/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleall India Liquid Bulk Vs. Adit(E)-Ii(2) Importers & Exporters Piramal Chambers, Association Lalbaug, Parel, 501- Mulratna, Mumbai – 400012. 334- Katha Bazar, Masjid, Mumbai – 400009. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagca5018F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Paresh Shaparia.C.A. Ar Respondent By : Mr.Kailash Mangal.Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 14.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-3, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961.The Assessee Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal: I. Confirmation Of Treatment Of The Non-Profit Organisation As A Mutual Concern & Denying Exemption U/S 11: 1. The Learned C1.T(A) Erred In Confirming Treatment Of The All Inida Liquid Bulk Importers & Exporters Association, Mumbai. Appellant As A Mutual Association Created Exclusively For The Benefit Of Its Members. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate The Fact That The Basic Conditions Of The Concept Of Mutuality Are Not Satisfied, Hence The Same Is Not Applicable To The Appellant.

For Appellant: Mr.Paresh Shaparia.C.A. ARFor Respondent: Mr.Kailash Mangal.Sr.DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 25

Bantra Anath Bandu Samity, Howrah vs. Asst Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 385/KOL/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata02 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargi.T.A. No.385/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Bantra Anath Bandu Samity.….……..............………………..……Appellant 31/16, Brindaban Mullick Lane, Kadamtala, Howrah-711101. [Pan: Aabtb6890N] Vs. Acit, Cpc……………..…….…..………………...…………..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Gautam Mondal, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 02, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 02, 2022 Hearing Through Video Conferencing Order The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 09.06.2021 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), 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’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) U/S 250 Of The Act Dated 09.06.2021 Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee Without Properly Appreciating The Explanation & Evidences Filed Is Arbitrary, Erroneous, Without Proper Reasons & Hence Unsustainable In Law. 2. That, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Disallowing/Adding Back Sum Of Rs.9,03, 1 57/- For Non Submission Of Audit Report In Form 10Bb Within The Stipulated Period. 3. That, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Rejecting The Reason & Explanation Furnished By The Assessee For Delay In Submitting Audit Report In Form 10Bbb 4. That, The Appellant Craves Leave To Amend, Alter, Modify, Substitute, Add To, Abridge And/ Or Rescind Any Or All Of The Above Grounds.”

Section 143(1)Section 250