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 Mahipal B. Shah, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 35(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 1485/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Mahipal B. Shah……………..............….……...........…………..……………….…...……..….…….......Appellant 26, Amartalla Street 1St Floor Burrabazar Kolkata- 700 001 [Pan : Avmps 0284 P] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-35(4), Kolkata.……......……….........…………..………….…............Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Nicholas Murmu, Jcit D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 28Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 9Th , 2019 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)-10, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 28/05/2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Is An Individual & Derives Income From Business & Other Sources. He Is In The Business Of Sale Of Plastic Containers. The Issues That Arise For My Consideration Are As Follows:- “2. That On The Facts & In The Circumstance Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Commission Expenses Of Rs. 8,81,966/- Incurred On Sales As Bogus Though The Agents Were Identified & Tds Was Accordingly Made Therefrom. 3. That On The Facts & In The Circumstance Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Is Wrong In Confirming Disallowance Of Salary Payment Of Rs. 1,40,000/- To K.K. Choraria As Not Genuine Without Accepting Assessee'S Explanation. 4. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Is Wrong In Confirming The Disallowance Of Salary Payment Of Rs. 6,33,000/-

Section 250

Luminous International, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-49, Kolkata

In the result, Ground No. 1(a) is dismissed as not pressed and Ground No

ITA 2745/KOL/2013[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jan 2019AY 2010-2011

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Luminous International………..............….……...........…………..……………….…...……..….…….......Appellant 41, Bangur Avenue Block-C 1St Floor Kolkata – 700 055 [Pan : Aabfl 1857 F] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-49 Kolkata.……............………….…............Respondent Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Kalyan Nath, Addl. Cit D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 11Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 09Th , 2019 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)-Xxxii, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 17/09/2013, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm & Is In The Business Of Export Of Gloves. It Filed Its Return On 04/09/2010, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.37,25,099/-. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act, Determining The Total Assessed Income At Rs.63,30,299/-, Interalia Making An Addition For Under Statement Of Value Of Closing Stock At Rs.23,47,368/- & Disallowance U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of Rs.2,57,831/-. The Assessee Carried The Matter In Appeal Without Success. 2.1. Further Aggrieved, The Assessee Is Before Us, On The Following Grounds:- “1. (A) For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 23,47,367/- Made By The A.O. On Account Of Understatement Of Valuation Of Closing Stock.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40