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

Arihant Gothi, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle-4(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 323/CHNY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 322 & 323/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2011-12 & 2016-17 Shri Arihant Gothi, The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 44, Kalathi Pillai Street, Vs. Income Tax, Sowcarpet, Chennai 600 079. Non Corporate Circle 4(1), [Pan:Ahgpg3532N] Chennai 600 006. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 5, Chennai, Both Dated 23.12.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2016-17. Besides Challenging The Confirmation Of Various Additions, The Assessee Has Mainly Challenged The Ex-Parte Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) By Raising Specific Ground For Both The Assessment Years.

For Appellant: Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

Arihant Gothi, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle-4(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 322/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 322 & 323/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2011-12 & 2016-17 Shri Arihant Gothi, The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 44, Kalathi Pillai Street, Vs. Income Tax, Sowcarpet, Chennai 600 079. Non Corporate Circle 4(1), [Pan:Ahgpg3532N] Chennai 600 006. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 5, Chennai, Both Dated 23.12.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2016-17. Besides Challenging The Confirmation Of Various Additions, The Assessee Has Mainly Challenged The Ex-Parte Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) By Raising Specific Ground For Both The Assessment Years.

For Appellant: Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

Quadro Info Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-1(4), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2618/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble Vice-, Kz & Ms. Madhumita Roy, Hon’Ble) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Quadro Info Technologies Pvt. Ltd...........................................................………………….............Appellant C/O. M/S. Salarpuria Jajodia & Co. 7, C.R. Avenue 3Rd Floor Kolkata – 700 072 [Pan : Aaacq 1163 F] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Kolkata...........................................................………..…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. Jhajharia, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 24Th, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 24Th, 2021 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-, Kz :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 1, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 25/10/2019, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’). 2. At The Time Of Hearing Fixed In This Case Before The Tribunal Today, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Sought To Withdraw This Appeal Of The Assessee On The Ground That The Assessee Has Decided To Settle The Dispute Involved In This Appeal Under The Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. As Submitted By Him, The Assessee Company Has Already Filed Declarations In Prescribed Form No. 1 & 2 Under The Said Scheme & Even The Competent Authority Has Issued The Certificate In Form-3 Determining The Tax Payable By The Assessee. Keeping In View This Submission Made By The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee, We Dismiss This Appeal Filed By The Assessee As Withdrawn. 3. In The Result, Appeal Of The Assessee Is Dismissed. Kolkata, The 24Th Day Of August, 2021. [P.M. Jagtap] [Madhumita Roy]Vice-Dated: 24.08.2021 {Sc Sps}

Section 250

M/S Trimurty Buildcon Pvt.Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward, 2(2), Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 46/JPR/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 46/Jp/2021 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2013-14 M/S Trimurty Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Cuke I.T.O. Vs. 601, Geeta Enclave, Vinoba Ward 2(2) Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aabct 7285 Q Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Miss. Shivangi Samdhani (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 17/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 25/03/2021 For The A.Y. 2013-14 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Id. Cit(A), Has Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of Assessee Company For The Sole Reason Of The Appeal Having Been Filed With Delay. The Action Of Id. Cit (A) Is Illegal, Unjustified, Arbitrary & Against The Facts Of The Case. Relief May Please Be Granted By Setting Aside The Order Of Id. Cit (A). 2. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Id. Cit(A), Has Erred In Coming To The Conclusion That The Appeal Of The 2

For Appellant: Miss. Shivangi Samdhani (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)