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

Dr. Murari Mohan Kolay, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 22(3), Kolkata

ITA 721/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Corrigemdum In R/O I.T.A No. 720/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & I.T.A No. 721/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dr. Murari Mohan Kolay………………………................................……………………………......….......Appellant 114/4/1A, Tollygugne Road Kalighat Kolkata – 700 026 [Pan : Afrpk 1976 K] Income Tax Officer, Ward-22(3), Kolkata.......................................................................……Respondent Date Of Order : April 26Th, 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- The Assessee Filed A Letter Dt. 23Rd April, 2019, Requesting Rectification Of A Mistake Apparent On Record In The Order Of This Tribunal Dt. 12/12/2018, Wherein The First Paragraph Of The Order Reads As Follows:- “Both These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Identical Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld.Cit(A)”), Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 07/03/2017, For The Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12.” After Perusing The Records We Rectify The First Paragraph Of The Order Of This Tribunal & The Same Shall Henceforth Be Read As Under:- “Both These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Identical Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld.Cit(A)”), Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 17/03/2017, For The Assessment Year 2010-11 & Dt. 20/03/2017 For The Assessment Year 2011-12.” Ordered Accordingly. Kolkata, The 26Th Day Of April, 2019. [S.S.Viswanethra Ravi] [J. Sudhakar Reddy]Dated : 26.04.2019 {Sc Sps}

Section 250

Dr. Murari Mohan Kolay, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 22(3), Kolkata

ITA 720/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Corrigemdum In R/O I.T.A No. 720/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & I.T.A No. 721/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dr. Murari Mohan Kolay………………………................................……………………………......….......Appellant 114/4/1A, Tollygugne Road Kalighat Kolkata – 700 026 [Pan : Afrpk 1976 K] Income Tax Officer, Ward-22(3), Kolkata.......................................................................……Respondent Date Of Order : April 26Th, 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- The Assessee Filed A Letter Dt. 23Rd April, 2019, Requesting Rectification Of A Mistake Apparent On Record In The Order Of This Tribunal Dt. 12/12/2018, Wherein The First Paragraph Of The Order Reads As Follows:- “Both These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Identical Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld.Cit(A)”), Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 07/03/2017, For The Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12.” After Perusing The Records We Rectify The First Paragraph Of The Order Of This Tribunal & The Same Shall Henceforth Be Read As Under:- “Both These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Identical Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld.Cit(A)”), Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 17/03/2017, For The Assessment Year 2010-11 & Dt. 20/03/2017 For The Assessment Year 2011-12.” Ordered Accordingly. Kolkata, The 26Th Day Of April, 2019. [S.S.Viswanethra Ravi] [J. Sudhakar Reddy]Dated : 26.04.2019 {Sc Sps}

Section 250

M/S. Ascent Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward - 14(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 2277/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara] I.T.A. No. 2277/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Ascent Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd......………………………………....…………………………………………Appellant 325, G.T. Road Belur Howrah – 711 201 [Pan : Aajca 1501 E] Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(4), Kolkata……………………………..…….........…..…......Respondent Appearances By: None, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri C.J. Singh, Jcit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 1St, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 26Th , 2019 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, (Ld. Cit(A)) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (The ‘Act’), Dt. 29/05/2017, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Despite Issue Of Notice By Rpad. The Application Moved By The Assessee For Adjournment Is Rejected As Devoid Of Merit. Under The Circumstances We Dispose Of The Case Ex-Parte On Merits Qua The Assessee After Hearing The Ld. Departmental Representative. 3. The Assessee Is A Company & During The Previous Year It Has Raised Share Capital Amounting To Rs. 1,33,00,000/-, Including Share Premium. The Assessing Officer Added This Amount U/S 68 Of The Act. Aggrieved The Assessee Carried The Matter In Appeal. The Ld. First Appellate Authority Upheld The Order Of The Assessing Officer & Confirmed The Addition. Aggrieved The Assessee Is In Appeal Before Us. 4. Heard The Ld. D/R. 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 142(1)Section 250Section 68

Sanjibon Diagonostic & Medical Research Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 2263/KOL/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 2263/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Sanjibon Diagnostic & Medical Research Pvt. Ltd......…………………………………………Appellant 4, Satyen Roy Road Kolkata – 700 034 [Pan : Aaecs 6340 N] Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(1), Kolkata.......................................................…..…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Pritam Choudhury, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri C.J. Singh, Jcit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 22Nd, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 26Th , 2019 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) - 4, Kolkata, (Ld. Cit(A)) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (The ‘Act’), Dt. 10/08/2017, For The Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. The Assessee Company Is A Diagnostic Centre. It Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2004-05 On 31/10/2004 Declaring Total Loss Of Rs.26,03,714/-. 3. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee, Mr. Pritam Choudhury, Did Not Press Ground Nos. 1 & 2. Hence They Are Dismissed As Such. 4. Ground No. 3, Is Against The Adhoc Disallowance Of 20% Claimed Under The Head “Travelling & Conveyance” Expenses On An Estimate Basis. The Assessing Officer Disallowed The Same On The Ground The Most Of The Bills Were Self Made & There Was No Scope Of Cross-Verification. The Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Same On The Ground That The Expenses Were Not Supported By Third Party Vouchers. Before Us, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submits That The Expenditure In Question Was Incurred By The Employees For Travelling & Conveyance & That The Whole

Section 250

New Barh Jewellers, Purba Medinipur vs. ITO, Ward - 1 [Now ITO, Ward - 27(1)], Haldia

In the result this ground of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 1303/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara] I.T.A. No. 1302/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 I.T.A. No. 1303/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 New Barh Jewellers.............……………………………………....…………………………………………Appellant C/O., D.J. Shah & Co Kalyan Bhawan 2, Elgin Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aacfm 2915 P] Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Haldia......................................................….………..…......Respondent (Now) Income Tax Officer, Ward-27(1), Haldia Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri C.J. Singh, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 20Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 23Rd, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- Both These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 7, Kolkata, (Ld. Cit(A)) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (The ‘Act’), Dt. 21/03/2017 For Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2009-10. 2. As The Issues Arising In Both These Appeals Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 3. The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm & Filed Its Return Of Income On 31/03/2008 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,09,361/- For The Assessment Year 2007-08 & On 14/10/2010 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.87,089/-. Later A Survey Operation U/S 133A Of The Act Was Conducted On The Business Premises Of The Assessee Company 23/04/2008 & The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny. The 2

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 40A(3)

New Barh Jewellers, Purba Medinipur vs. ITO, Ward - 1 [Now ITO, Ward - 27(1)], Haldia

In the result this ground of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 1302/KOL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara] I.T.A. No. 1302/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 I.T.A. No. 1303/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 New Barh Jewellers.............……………………………………....…………………………………………Appellant C/O., D.J. Shah & Co Kalyan Bhawan 2, Elgin Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aacfm 2915 P] Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Haldia......................................................….………..…......Respondent (Now) Income Tax Officer, Ward-27(1), Haldia Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri C.J. Singh, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 20Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 23Rd, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- Both These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 7, Kolkata, (Ld. Cit(A)) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (The ‘Act’), Dt. 21/03/2017 For Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2009-10. 2. As The Issues Arising In Both These Appeals Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 3. The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm & Filed Its Return Of Income On 31/03/2008 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,09,361/- For The Assessment Year 2007-08 & On 14/10/2010 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.87,089/-. Later A Survey Operation U/S 133A Of The Act Was Conducted On The Business Premises Of The Assessee Company 23/04/2008 & The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny. The 2

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 40A(3)