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

Haridaspur Paradip Railway Company Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 83/CTK/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.83/Ctk/2016 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Haridaspur Paradip Railway Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Company Ltd., Bhubaneswar J/7, Pal Heights, Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar-751013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabch 9319 R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.Venugopal Rao, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Pradhan, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03/10/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 09/10/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, In Appeal Reference No.0268/2015-16, Dated 28.12.2015, Passed U/S.143(3)/250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011, 2. The Only Substantive Ground Raised By The Assessee That The Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Without Considering The Fact That The Ao Was Not Justified In Making The Addition Denying The Interest On Mobilisation Advance Received From The Contractors During The Construction/Project Period Is A Capital Receipt & Is Adjustable Against Pre-Operative Expenses. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Development, Establishment, Financing, Construction, Maintenance & Management Of Haridaspur-Paradeep Railway Linkage

For Appellant: Shri P.Venugopal Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Satendra Prasad, Baripada vs. DCIT, Balasore

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

ITA 306/CTK/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack19 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.306/Ctk/2015 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Satendra Prasad, Vs. Dcit, Balasore Circle, Ward No.5, Kacheri Road, Balasore Baripada-757001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aelpp 6065 K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri D.K.Sheth, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Pradhan,Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 18/09/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A), Cuttack, In Appeal No.0674/2013-14, Dated 27.02.2015, Passed U/S.143(3)/250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2011-2012, 2. The Only Substantive Ground Raised By The Assessee That The Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee & The Adhoc Addition Made By The Ao Is Unjustified. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Civil Contractor Based In Mayurbhanj District, Odisha & Filed The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2010-2011 On 24.05.2012 With Total Income Of Rs.44,68,660/- & The Return Of Income Was Processed U/S.143(1) Of The Act & Subsequently The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under & Notice U/S.143(2) & 142(1) Was Issued. In Compliance To The Same, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Appeared From Time To Time.

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan,CITDR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Girdharilal Bhartia, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 44(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 565/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.565/Kol/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Girdharilal Bhartia Vs. I.T.O. Ward 44(1), Kolkata 126, N M Joshi Marg, Mathurdas 3, Govt. Place (West), Mill Compound, C D House, Lower Kolkata – 700 001. Parel (West), Mumbai – 400 013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adzpb 9756 G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Arvind Agarwal, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Acit, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata, In Appeal No.487/Cit(A)-13/2014-15/Kol, Dated 08.03.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Ao U/S.147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Dated 29.03.2014. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That Ld. Cit(A) Passed An Ex Parte Order Stating That The Notices, Which Were Sent To The Assessee Had Been Returned Back By The Postal

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, ACIT, CIT DR
Section 147Section 250

Atmaram Tantta HUF, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 43(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 540/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Aug 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 540/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Atmaram Tantiya (Huf) -Vs.- I.T.O., Ward-43(1) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aacha 1629 R] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri Alok Nath, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 31.07.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2017. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.08.2016 Of C.I.T(A)- 13, Kolkata Relating To A.Y.2013-14. 2. The Assessee Is A Huf. It Carries On Business As Manufacturer & Trader Of Hosiery Goods. For A.Y.2013-14 The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 29.09.2013 Disclosing Total Income Of Rs.12,63,390/-. An Order Of Assessment Was Passed By The Ao U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At A Sum Of Rs.41,93,590/-. Aggrieved By The Various Additons To The Total Income Made By The Ao In The Order Of Assessment, The Assessee Preferred Appeal Before Cit(A). The Cit(A) Vide Order Dated 22.08.2016 Confirmed The Order Of Ao & Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee. 3. A Perusal Of Cit(A)’S Order Shows That He Has Decided The Appeal Ex-Parte. Order Of Cit(A) Mentions That Notice U/S 250 Of The Act Was Served & None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. In Page-18 Of The Cit(A)’S Order It Has Been Mentioned That Notices Dted 30.05.2016, 05-07.2016, 28.07.2016 & 10.08.2016 Were Issued. The Order Of Cit(A) Also Mentions That None Of The Notices Were Served On The Assessee & 2 Atmaram Tantiya (Huf). A.Yr.2013-14 No New Address Is Available. Thus It Is Clear That None Of The Notices Of Hearing Was Served On The Assessee. 4. Before Us The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Filed The Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. For That The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant On The Alleged Grounds.

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Alok Nath, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 250

Nabaghana Sahoo, Angul vs. ITO, Ward-1, Dhenkanal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 87/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack03 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.87/Ctk/2016 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Nabaghana Sahoo, Shanti Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Dhenkanal Marg, Susuda, Angul स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Atdps 1686 A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. धनधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.C.Sethi, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Pradhan, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/08/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Passed In Itappeal No.0226/2015-16, Dated 18.12.2015, U/S.271(1)(B) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act. 2. The Assessee Has Challenged The Action Of The Cit(A) In Confirming The Penalty Levied U/S.271(1)(B) Of The Act Of Rs.50,000/-. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Retail Trading In Petroleum & Allied Products & Filed The Return Of Income Electronically On 31.01.2012 With Total Income Of Rs.6,09,570/-. Subsequently Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & Notices U/S.143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued. In Compliance, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Appeared & Case Was Discussed & Produced Information On The Disputed Issue. Ld. Ao After Verifying The Financial Statements Made Aggregate Addition Of Expenses & Assessed The Total Income To Rs.8,21,720/- & Passed The Order U/S.143(3) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri P.C.Sethi, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, CITDR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)