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

Shri Subhash Boro, Guwahati vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Guwahati

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

ITA 53/GTY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati31 Jul 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.53/Gau/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2015-16) Shri Subhash Boro Vs. Ito, Ward-3(4), Guwahati Garchuk, Pub-Borahaon(Near Garchuk Po), Guwahati "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aifpb 0385 C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By :Shri Rockcinsaikia, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 03/06/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/07/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2015-16, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)—2, Guwahati, In Appeal No. 373065091240118, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The ‘Act’) Dated 29/12/2017. 2. Ground No.1 Raised By The Assessee Is As Follows: 1. For That In View Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Highly Unjustified In Passing An Ex Parte Order Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act,1961 Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Appellant Without Going Into The Merits Of The Case. 3.None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Ld. Dr Was Present For The Revenue. We Have Heard Ld. D.R. For The Revenue & Perused The Material Available On Record. We Note That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Passed Ex-Parte Order & Did Not Deal With Various Issues Raised By Assessee On Merits. The Ld Cit(A) Also Did Not Consider The Assessment Records While Adjudicating The Issues, Hence It Is A Violation Of Principle Of Natural Justice. The Ld. Cit(A) Just Dismissed The Appeal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri RockcinSaikia, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250