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

Upen Vimalbhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(5)(Currently Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITSSA 2/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyali.T(Ss).A. No.02/Ahd/2024 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Upen Vimalbhai Shah, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 202, Vamndan Flats, 74, Ward-4(2)(5), Jain Nagar Society, Pladi, (Currently Ito Ward4(2)(3)) Ahmedabad-380007 Ahmedabad [Pan No.Afaps2459A] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Chirag Shah, A.R. Respondent By: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit Dr 26.12.2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 25.03.2025 O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal -: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, (In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”), Ahmedabad Vide Order Dated 14.12.2023 Passed For A.Y. 2011-12. The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 2. “1. The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of Income Tax Act By The Assessing Officer & Confirmed By The First Appellate Authority U/S 250 Is Bad In Law & Deserved To Be Uncalled For. 2. The Assessing Officer As Well As First Appellate Authority Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Adding & Confirming Respectively The Unexplained Income Of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The Same Deserves To Be Deleted. 3. The Appellant Craves To Reserve His Right To Add, Alter, Amend, Or Delete Any Ground Of Appeal During The Course Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Chirag Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Dahyabhai Shankarbhai Patel, Vadodara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 251/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.251/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Dahyabhai Shankarbhai Patel The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Ashutosha, 300 Kadamnagar Ward-1(3)(1), V/S. Nr. Mehsana Nagar Vadodara Nizampura, Vadodara-390 024 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Acspp 2248 R (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Talati, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24 /03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25 /03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.12.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16, Whereby The Cit(A) Upheld The Addition Of Rs.2,78,14,620/- Made By The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As "Ao”] Under Section 69 Of The Act As Unexplained Investment. Dahyabhai Shankarbhai Patel Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr.DR
Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69