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

Umesh Kankani, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 4(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 2497/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 2497/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Umesh Kankani………………….……………………………………..……..………………………………Appellant 5, Kiran Shankar Roy Road Kolkata- 700 001 [Pan : Akmpk 8942 R] I.T.O. Ward-4(4), Kolkata..……..…………….…………………………………………….………..Respondent 8Th Floor Ayakar Bhawan P-7 Chowringhee Square Kolkata – 700 069 Appearances By: Shri Deepak Jain, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sanjay Mukherjee, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 21St, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 23Rd, 2018 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :- This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 10/10/2017, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. After Hearing Rival Contentions, I Find That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Passed An Ex- Parte Order. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit Giving Reasons As To Why He Could Not Appear Before The Ld. Cit(A). I Am Convinced That He Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Appearing Before The Revenue Authorities. 3. In View Of The Above Discussion, I Set Aside The Assessment To The File Of The Ld. Cit(A) For Fresh Adjudication In Accordance With Law, On The Ground Of Natural Justice. The Assessee Shall Appear Before The Ld. Cit(A), Within One Month Of Receipt Of This Order, Take Notice & Thereafter Co-Operate In Disposal Of This Appeal.

Section 250

Smt. Nilam Keshan, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 51(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 2200/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 2200/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Nilam Keshan…………….……………………………………..……..………………………………Appellant 12, Sir Hariram Goenka Street Ground Floor Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Afxpk 8152 P] I.T.O. Ward-51(4), Kolkata……..…………….…………………………………………….………..Respondent Uttarapan Complex Ultadanga Kolkata – 700 054 Appearances By: Shri Amit Jalan, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 18Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 16Th, 2018 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :- This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 31/07/2017, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Is An Individual & Is Engaged In The Business Of Retail & Wholesale Trade Of Thread & Yarn. She Filed Her Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration On 07/09/2011, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.6,39,540/-. The First Issue That Arises Before Me For Adjudication Is Whether The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Commission Expenses, Other Expenses On Adhoc Basis As Sustained By The Ld. Cit(A) Is Correct In Facts & On Law. 3. After Hearing Rival Contentions, I Find That The Assessee Claimed That He Had Paid An Amount Of Rs.18,03,600/- As Commission During The Year. The Assessing Officer Disallowed An Amount Of Rs.3,58,400/-, Being Commission Paid To Shri Rajesh Kochar & A.K. Surana & Co. The Assessee Has Submitted Supporting Evidence For These Payments By Way Of Copies Of Bills Received From These Parties.

Section 133(6)Section 250

M/S. Harsh Polyfabric Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 5(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 1723/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 1723/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Harsh Polyfabric Pvt. Ltd………………………………..……..………………………………Appellant Room No. 759 Marshall House 25, Strand Road Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Aabch 8607 G] I.T.O. Ward-5 (4), Kolkata……..……………..…………………………………………….………..Respondent Kolkata – 700 069 Appearances By: Shri Amit Jalan, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 18Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 16Th, 2018 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :- This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 04/05/2017, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Assessee Is A Company & Is In The Business Of Manufacturing Of Hdpe/Pp Non-Woven Fabric. Though The Assessee Has Taken Ten Grounds Of Appeal, There Are Only Two Issues That Arise For My Adjudication. 3. The First Issue Is Validity Of The Re-Opening Of The Assessment & The Second Issue Is Challenging The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Upholding The Order Of The Assessing Officer & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.22,87,502/-. Ground No. 1 To 5, Which Are On The Issue Of Re-Opening Of The Assessment & Grounds Of Natural Justice Are Dismissed As Not Pressed. 4. On The Issue Of Addition Of Rs.22,87,502/-, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That, The Entire Addition Was Based On An Alleged Statement Recorded From Shri Vikash Agarwal, Director Of M/S. Vikash Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd.. During The Course Of Survey Operation U/S 133A Of The Act, Which Was Conducted On 2

Section 133ASection 250

ITO, WD-39(4), Midnapore vs. Sri Tapan Singha, Paschim Medinipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1232/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1232/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 I.T.O. Ward-39(4) Midnapore…………………………………..……..…………………………….. Appellant Sahoo Bhawan Kshudiram Nagar Midnapore – 721 101 West Bengal Sri Tapan Singha……………….……..…………….…………………………………………….…….. Respondent C/O S.N. Ghosh Associates, Advocate Seven Brothers Lodge P.O. Buroshibtala P.S. Chinsurah Dist. Hooghly Pin – 712 105 [Pan : Atjps 3574 R] Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 3Rd, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 16Th, 2018 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :- This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Durgapur, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 31/07/2015, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case:- The Assessee Is An Individual & Is In The Business Of Carrying Out Contracts. He Filed His Return Of Income On 06/09/2010, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.9,32,660/-. The Assessing Officer Completed Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act, Determining The Total Income At Rs.86,24,660/- Interalia Making Additions On Account Of Disallowance Of Expenditure & Undisclosed Investments. The Assessee Carried The Matter In Appeal.

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250

Arup Kumar Hazra, Midnapore vs. I.T.O. Ward - 39(2), Midnapore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2385/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 2385/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Arup Kumar Hazra…………….……………………………………..……..…………………………….. Appellant C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates Seben Brothers’ Lodge P.O. Buroshibtala Chinsurah Dist. Hooghly Pin – 712 105 [Pan : Aorph 9261 R] I.T.O. Ward-39(2), Midnapore..…………….…………………………………………….…….. Respondent Income Tax Office Sahoo Bhawan Khudiram Nagar P.O. Midnapore Dist. Midnapore (W) Pin – 721 101 Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Pinaki Mukherjee, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 19Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 4Th, 2018 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :- This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 22/09/2017, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Is An Individual & Is A Dealer In Liquefied Petroleum Gas Of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. He Has A Proprietary Concern Under The Name & Style Of M/S. Paul Service Station. He Filed His Return Of Income On 29Th September, 2012, Disclosing Total Income At Rs.6,74,512/-. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act, By Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.38,66,460/-, Interalia Making Addition On Account Of Concealed Investment, Alleged Gross Profit Earned On Commission On Estimate Basis, Violation Of Provision Of Section 269Ss Of The Act, Etc. The Assessee Carried The Matter In Appeal.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 269SSection 44A