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. Calcom Consultancy Services (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 9(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 2539/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 2539/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Calcom Consultancy Service P. Ltd…..……………………………………..……....………Appellant C/O Kapoor Mehrota & Associates 23, Ganesh Chandra Avenue 3Rd Floor Kolkata - 700013 [Pan : Aabcc 0899 F] Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(3), Kolkata……………….…………..…………….……..Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069 Appearances By: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri D.C. Mondal, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 13, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 11, 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :- This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Kolkata (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit (A)’), Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt.04/10/2017, For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. There Is A Delay Of 4 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. After Perusing The Petition For Condonation Of Delay As Well As The Affidavit Filed In Support Of The Same, I Am Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause In Filing Of The Appeal In Time. Hence, I Condone The Delay & Admit This Appeal. After Hearing Rival Contentions, I Hold As Follows:-

Section 250

Cybertech Software and Multimedia Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 279/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.279/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Cybertech Software & Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle- Multimedia (P) Ltd., 1(1), Bhubaneswar N-3/312, Irc Village, Nayapalli Bhubaneswar-751015 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 5512 F (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B.K.Mahapatra, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Pradhan, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/04/2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 09/04/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Passed In It Appeal No.0176/15-16, Dated 20.3.2017 U/S.143(3)/250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. At The Time Of Hearing Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submitted The Ld. Cit(A) Has Passed Ex-Parte Order & The Assessee Has Not Received The Notice, Therefore, Prayed For Allowing The Appeal. 3. Contra, Ld. Dr Relied On The Order Of The Cit(A). 4. We Have Heard Submissions Of Both The Parties & Perused The Material On Record. Before Going Into The Merits Of The Case, We Consider It Appropriate To Consider The Facts In Respect Of Non-Appearance Of The Assessee. Ld. Ar’S Contention That The Assessee Has Not Received Notice

For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mahapatra, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 143(3)