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

Mr. Uttam Kumar Mondal, Asansol vs. ITO, Ward - 2(2), Asansol

In the result, appeal of the assessee is appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 55/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Waseem Ahmed, Hon’Ble & Sri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon’Ble) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Uttam Kumar Mondal……………….…………………................................……………….….........Appellant Sumath Pally Rash Danga S.B. Gorai Road Asansol – 713 301 [Pan : Adzpm 7775 Q] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Asansol………………..…..………...…..................……………..Respondent Appearances By: None, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 11Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 16Th , 2020 Order Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - Asansol, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 14/11/2018, For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 3. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. There Is No Petition For Adjournment Either. Under These Circumstances, We Dispose Off The Case Ex-Parte, On Merits, Qua The Assessee After Hearing The Ld. Departmental Representative. 4. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Under “Vivad Se Viswas Scheme” & Submitted That The Appeal May Be Dismissed As Withdrawn. The Ld. D/R Submitted That She Has No Objection If The Prayer Of The Assessee Is Accepted, Subject To A Rider That, The Same Should Be Restored, In Case The Application For Settlement Of Dispute Under The Scheme Is Not Accepted By The Competent Authorities. 5. Heard The Ld. D/R. The Assessee Filed A Letter Dt. 28/10/2020 For Withdrawal Of The Appeal Stating That He Has Preferred An Application The “Vivad Se Viswas Scheme”. The Letter Is Extracted Under:-

Section 250

Powergen Holdings B.V., Mumbai vs. DDIT (International Taxation) - 2(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid

ITA 6128/MUM/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2020AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri N.K. Pradhanआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 6128/Mum/2016 (यनधाारण िर्ा / Assessment Year 2002-03) Powergen Holdings B.V. The Dy. Director Of Income C/O. Deloitte Haskin & Sells Llp Tax, (International Indiabulls Finance Centre, Tower- Taxation)-2(1), Mumbai बनाम/ 3, 28 Th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road (West), Vs. Mumbai-400 013 (अपीलाथी / Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aaccp5035H अपीलाथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. Urvi Mehta, Ar प्रत्यथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshai, Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22.12.2020 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 22.12.2020 आदेश / O R D E R श्री विकास अिस्थी, न्याययक सदस्य के द्िारा Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-55, Mumbai (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 28.06.2016 For The Assessment Year 2002-03. 2. A Request Letter Dated 01.12.2020 Has Been Received From The Assessee Stating That The Assessee Company Has Opted For ‘Viwad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020’ (In Short ‘Vsvs’) & Hence, Does Not Want To Litigate Further. The Relevant Extract Of The Aforesaid Letter Is Reproduced Herein Below: Powergen Holdings B.V., Ay:02-03 “Dear Sir Re.: Powergen Holdings B.V. –Netherlands----Appellant The Deputy Director Of Income-Tax (International Taxation)-Circle 2(1), Mumbai

For Appellant: Ms. Urvi Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshai, DR
Section 250Section 4Section 5