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 Quality Stores Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-15(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1957/KOL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble Am & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble] I.T.A. No. 1957/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Quality Stores Pvt. Ltd…………..…..…………………....………………..…………………….....Appellant G-5, Ground Floor 1, Crooked Lane Kolkata – 700 069 [Pan: Aaacq 1612 R] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(2), Kolkata….......................................…...…………........Respondent Appearances By: Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, Fca, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, Jcit, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 27Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 10Th, 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) – 5, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld.Cit(A)”), Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 19/07/2019, For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Assessee Is A Company & During The Previous Year It Raised Share Capital Amounting To Rs. 14,41,38,000/-, Including Share Premium. The Assessing Officer Made An Addition U/S 68 Of The Act, Of This Amount For The Reason That There Was Non-Compliance On Part Of The Assessee Company, Due To Non-Appearance Of Share Applicants/Holders, Directors, Of The Company, In Response To Notices U/S 131 Of The Act & That The Genuineness Of The Credit Could Not Be Proved. Aggrieved The Assessee Carried The Matter In Appeal Without Success. 3. Further Aggrieved The Assessee Is In Appeal Before Us. 4. 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:-

Section 131Section 131(1)Section 250Section 68

J.K.Engineering Corporation, Howrah vs. I.T.O., Ward-47(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1849/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy) Assessment Year: 2011-12 J.K. Engineering Corporation……………........................................................……………….…......Appellant Nabanagar, Duillya Andul Howrah West Bengal – 711 302 [Pan : Aaffj 2845 P] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-47(2), Kolkata……………...................................….………....…....Respondent Appearances By: Shri A.N. Keshari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 12Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 10Th, 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) – 14, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld.Cit(A)”), Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 02/05/2019, For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Sole Issue That Arises In This Appeal For Our Adjudication Is Whether The Allegation Of The Revenue That The Assessee Has Made Bogus Purchases Of Rs.11,85,227/- From Two Parties Is Correct Or Not. The Assessing Officer Assessed A Percentage Of These Purchases As Income From The Assessee. The Two Parties Are M/S. Singh Mercantile (P) Ltd. (Rs.5,00,010/-) & M/S. Durga Commodeal (P) Ltd. (Rs.6,85,217/-). The Assessing Officer Depended On The Information Received From The Investigation Wing Of The Income Tax Department Which Conducted A Search Operation In The Case Of Shri Sanjiw Kumar Singh, U/S 132 Of The Act. Shri Sanjiw Kumar Singh, Is Alleged To Have Stated, In His Statements That, He Is Engaged In Jamakharchi Or Accommodation Entry Business. 3. The Assessee’S Case Is That, Purchases From M/S. Singh Mercantile, Does Not Pertain To The Current Financial Year. The Said Purchases Were Made For The Assessment Year 2009-10. This Fact Was Not Contradicted By The Ld. D/R. Thus, We

Section 132Section 250

Ambattur Infra Developers, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc-7(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3241/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.3241/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Vs The Acit, M/S. Ambattur Infra Developers, No.86, E-2, Industrial Estate, Non Corporate Circle 7 (1), Ambattur, Chennai – 600 058. Chennai. Pan: Aanfa6447L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N. Vijaykumar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.01.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per N.R.S. Ganesan: The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–7, Chennai Dated 26.09.2018 & Pertains To The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Shri N. Vijay Kumar, The Ld. Representative For The Assessee Submitted That The Cit(A) Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee For Non-Prosecution Without Discussing Anything On Merit. According To The Ld. Representative, The Cit(A) Is Expected To Dispose The Appeal

For Appellant: Shri N. Vijaykumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 250Section 250(1)Section 250(4)

Rajiv Kumar Ganeriwala, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-31(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 1847/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble] I.T.A. No. 1847/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Rajiv Kumar Ganeriwala………...…….…...................……....………………..………………....……Appellant 16B, Rowland Road West Bengal - 700020 [Pan: Ahlpg 6209 K] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-31(4), Kolkata………………………………………….………......Respondent Appearances By: None, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit, Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 12Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 8Th, 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) – 09, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld.Cit(A)”), Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 26/06/2019, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. There Is No Application For Adjournment Either. Under These Circumstances, We Dispose Off The Case Ex-Parte On Merits Qua The Assessee After Hearing The Ld. Departmental Representative. 3. Heard The Ld. D/R. 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 In Accordance With 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 Natural Justice. 4. In The Result, Appeal Of Assessee Is Allowed For Statistical Purposes. Kolkata, The 8Th Day Of January, 2020. [J. Sudhakar Reddy]Dated : 08.01.2020 {Sc Sps}

Section 250

Subrata Majumder, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-49(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 1813/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Subrata Majumder………...............…………........................................................……………….…......Appellant 121/1, Shyamnagar Road Dumdum Kolkata – 700 055 [Pan : Adxpm 0563 G] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-49(3), Kolkata……………………………................….………....…....Respondent Appearances By: None, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 10Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 8Th, 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) – 15, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld.Cit(A)”), Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 03/05/2019, For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. There Is No Application For Adjournment Either. Under These Circumstances, We Dispose Off The Case Ex-Parte On Merits Qua The Assessee After Hearing The Ld. Departmental Representative. 3. Heard The Ld. D/R. 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 In Accordance With 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 Natural Justice. 4. In The Result, Appeal Of Assessee Is Allowed For Statistical Purposes. Kolkata, The 8Th Day Of January, 2020. [J. Sudhakar Reddy]Dated : 08.01.2020 {Sc Sps}

Section 250

Narendra Nath Kumbhat, Murshidabad vs. I.T.O., Ward-42(1), Murshidabad

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

ITA 1807/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble] I.T.A. No. 1807/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Narendra Nath Kumbhat.........……….…...................……....………………..………………....……Appellant Sagardighi Near Railway Station Murshidabad - 742226 [Pan: Aiqpk 7043 K] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-42(1), Kolkata................................................….....….…......Respondent Appearances By: None, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit, Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 9Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 8Th, 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) – 12, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld.Cit(A)”), Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 12/06/2019, For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. There Is No Application For Adjournment Either. Under These Circumstances, We Dispose Off The Case Ex-Parte On Merits Qua The Assessee After Hearing The Ld. Departmental Representative. 3. 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 In Accordance With 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 Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice. 4. In The Result, Appeal Of Assessee Is Allowed For Statistical Purposes.

Section 250

D.C.I.T., Circle - 12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S A.K.G Finvest Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 97/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12(1), Kolkata……...........…….…….....…....Appellant Vs. M/S. Akg Finvest Ltd…………………………………………..................................……………..…......Respondent 1St Floor 37A, Southern Avenue (Renamed As Dr. Meghnad Saha Sarani) Kolkata – 700 029 [Pan : Aadca 8306 P] Appearances By: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 28Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 8Th, 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 22, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld.Cit(A)”), Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 16/10/2017, For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 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 Assessee Is A Non-Banking Financial Company. It Filed Its Return Of Income Electronically On 29.09.2010, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.22,50,430/-. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 31/03/2013 Determining Total Income At Rs.6,37,17,496/-. Aggrieved The Assessee Carried The Matter In Appeal Before The Ld. First Appellate Authority. The Ld. First Appellate Authority Granted Part Relief. 4. Aggrieved The Revenue Is In Appeal Before Us On The Following Grounds:- “(I) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred By Treating The Frequent Sales & Purchases Of The Assessee Company As Investment Income & Not Business Income.

Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250