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

Sri Siddhartha Bandyopadhyay, Kolkata vs. ITO Ward-29(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2314/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble] I.T.A. No. 2314/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sri Siddhartha Bandopadhyay....…………...……………....……..…………..………………....……Appellant Amrapali Castle Block-B, Flat-3C 3/1, Bediadanga First Lane Kolkata – 700 039 [Pan: Akbpb 2774 M] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-29(3), Kolkata……………………….…..............….....….…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Mihir Bandopadhyay, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit, Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 24Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 26Th, 2020 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 10, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld.Cit(A)”), Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 02/07/2019, For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. After Hearing Rival Contentions, We Find That The Disputes Are Only With Regard To Two Receipts. The Assessee Is An Individual & Receives Commission & Interest. The Addition Made Pertain To:- A) An Amount Of Rs.2,00,000/- Received By The Assessee From His Father & B) An Amount Of Rs.90,000/- Received From His Mother. 3. The Assessee Has Filed Copies Of The Bank Statement Of His Late Father (Since Deceased), In Support Of The Sources. Similarly, As Far As The Loan Received From His Mother Is Concerned, The Assessee Has Produced Copies Of Her Bank Statements. A Perusal Of These Bank Statements Demonstrate That There Was Sufficient Sources Of Funds With The Parents Of The Assessee To Make Advance To The Assessee. Thus, I Delete The Addition & Allow This Appeal Of The Assessee. 4. In The Result, Appeal Of The Assessee Is Allowed.

Section 250

M/S Shashanka Build Tech Private Limited, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-11(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1665/KOL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Shashanka Build Tech Pvt. Ltd...............................................................……………….…......Appellant C/O Jhantu Sarkar 5A, Cit Road Ananda Palit Hazra Bagan Kolkata – 700 015 [Pan : Aadcr 8797 F] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(2), Kolkata……………………………................….………....…....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akshay Rangasia, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 24Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 26Th, 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) – 4, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld.Cit(A)”), Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 28.02.2019, For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Heard Rival Contentions. On Perusing The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), We Find That The Assessee Has Not Appeared Before The Ld. Cit(A) & Hence An Ex-Parte Order Was Passed Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee. We Find That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Not Disposed Off The Case On Merits. This Is Not Permissible In Law. Hence, We Deem It Fit To Restore The Issue To The File Of The Ld. Cit(A), For Fresh Adjudication, In Accordance With Law, After Giving The Assessee Adequate Opportunity Of Being Heard, On The Grounds Of Violations Of The Principles Of Natural Justice. 3. In The Result, Appeal Of Assessee Is Allowed For Statistical Purposes. Kolkata, The 26Th Day Of February, 2020. [J. Sudhakar Reddy]Dated : 26.02.2020 {Sc Sps}

Section 250

M/S Environ Solar (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-13(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2604/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Environ Solar (P) Ltd…….....…………………….........................................……………..…..........Appellant 60A, D.H. Road Thakurpur Kolkata – 700 063 [Pan : Aadce 1639 H] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-13(1), Kolkata.........................................................….……..........Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Smt. Ranu Biswas Addl. Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 31St, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 19Th, 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) – 5, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld.Cit(A)”), Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 07/11/2019, For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. We Have Heard Rival Contentions. On Careful Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Perusal Of The Papers On Record, Orders Of The Authorities Below As Well As Case Law Cited, We Hold As Follows:- 3. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That There Was An Excess Deduction Of Tds By The Payer. He Submitted That This Fact Of Having Deducted Tds In Excess Than What Was Legally Required To Be Done, Is Accepted By The Payer. He Pointed Out That The Assessing Officer Based On Such Excess Deduction Of Tds , Determined The Turnover Of The Assessee At A Higher Figure Than What Was The Actual Turnover. He Prayed That The Matter May Be Restored To The File Of The Assessing Officer To Verify The Facts & Arrive At The Correct Turnover. 4. The Ld. D/R Had No Objection In The Matter Being Restored To The File Of The Assessing Officer For Fresh Adjudication & Determination Of The Correct Turnover.

Section 250