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

M/S Multi Commodity Exchange Investor Protection Fund, Mumbai vs. ITO(E)-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 861/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.861/Mum/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) बनधम/ M/S. Multi Commodity Ito (E)-2(1) 5Th Floor, Piramal Exchange Investor Vs. Protection Fund Chambers Lalbaug Parel, Exchange Square, Cts Mumbai-400012. No.225 Suren Road Chakala Andheri (E), Mukhed-400093. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadtm1169M (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. Assessee By: Shri Girish Dave/Tanzil R. Padvekar Revenue By: Ms. Jotilakshmi Nayak (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/02/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/03/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 04.11.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014- 15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1) The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ("Ld. Cit(A)") Erred In Passing The Order U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Without Giving An Opportunity Of Being Heard To Your Appellant Thereby Violating The Principles Of Natural Justice. Looking To The Facts & Circumstances Of Appellant'S Case & In Law, It Is Submitted That Vide Letter Dated 09/10/2019 Your Appellant Had Requested The Ld. Cit(A) For A Short Adjournment As The Concerned Authorized Person Was Out Of India. Without Prejudice To The Above:

For Appellant: Shri Girish Dave/Tanzil RFor Respondent: Ms. Jotilakshmi Nayak (DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 2(15)Section 250

Shri Sajjan Agarwal, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-3(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 2476/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Mar 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2015-16 & S.A. No.114/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Sajjan Agarwal..........………………………………………..................................……………..….......Appellant 49A, Tollygunge Circular Road New Alipore Kolakta – 700 053 [Pan : Adkpa 4768 J] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-3(4), Kolkata……........................….…….....…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 5Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 13Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 21, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld.Cit(A)”), Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 21/10/2019, For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 31/08/2015 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.11,58,890/-. He Declared Income From Salary & Other Sources & Claimed Exemption Under The Head Long Term Capital Gain. The Assessing Officer Completed Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 27/12/2017 Determining The Total Income At Rs.92,98,480/-. Aggrieved The Assessee Carried The Matter In Appeal Without Success. 3. Further Aggrieved, The Assessee Is Before Us. 4. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee, Shri Sunil Surana, Submitted That The Assessee Purchased 12000 Shares Of Gcm Securities Ltd @ Rs.20/ - Each On Preferential Allotment For A Total Consideration Of Rs. 2,40,000/- On 27.3.2013 For Which Payment Was Made By Account Payee Cheque. Subsequently, Those Shares Were Split Into The Ratio

Section 10(38)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250