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

Income Tax Officer, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva Kol vs. Sita Ram Pareek, Burrabazar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 653/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. No.378/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sitaram Pareek………………....…………...………......................……….……Appellant Ca Anup Kumar Sanghai Sanghai & Co, Ca 21, Hemanta Basu Sarani, 2Nd Floor, Room No.204, Kolkata -1. [Pan:Alqpp5688N] Vs. Ito, Ward-36(1), Kolkata..............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent I.T.A. No.653/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ito, Ward-36(1), Kolkata ………………....………......................……….……Appellant Vs. Sitaram Pareek..............…..….…..…..........................……........……...…..…..Respondent Ca Anup Kumar Sanghai Sanghai & Co, Ca 21, Hemanta Basu Sarani, 2Nd Floor, Room No.204, Kolkata -1. [Pan:Alqpp5688N] Appearances By: Shri Anup Sanghai, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Adhikari, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 11, 2025 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: The Captioned Are Cross-Appeals, One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue Against The Common Order Dated 29.12.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since The Facts & Issued Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical & Both The Appeals Are Arising Out Of The Same Order Of The Ld.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Sitaram Pareek, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-36(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 378/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. No.378/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sitaram Pareek………………....…………...………......................……….……Appellant Ca Anup Kumar Sanghai Sanghai & Co, Ca 21, Hemanta Basu Sarani, 2Nd Floor, Room No.204, Kolkata -1. [Pan:Alqpp5688N] Vs. Ito, Ward-36(1), Kolkata..............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent I.T.A. No.653/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ito, Ward-36(1), Kolkata ………………....………......................……….……Appellant Vs. Sitaram Pareek..............…..….…..…..........................……........……...…..…..Respondent Ca Anup Kumar Sanghai Sanghai & Co, Ca 21, Hemanta Basu Sarani, 2Nd Floor, Room No.204, Kolkata -1. [Pan:Alqpp5688N] Appearances By: Shri Anup Sanghai, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Adhikari, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 11, 2025 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: The Captioned Are Cross-Appeals, One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue Against The Common Order Dated 29.12.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since The Facts & Issued Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical & Both The Appeals Are Arising Out Of The Same Order Of The Ld.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Roomle Das, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 50(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 1654/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Mar 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. No.1654/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Roomle Das……………………....…………...………......................……….……Appellant 4, East Belgharia 1St Lane, Belgharia, Kolkata – 700083. [Pan: Bfzpd1491R] Vs. Ito, Ward-50(4), Kolkata..............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri P. J. Bhide, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Arup Chatterjee, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 11, 2025 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Against The Order Dated 18.06.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Case Of The Assessee Could Not Be Represented Before The Assessing Officer Due To Certain Reasons Which Were Beyond The Control Of The Assessee & Therefore, The Assessment Was Framed By The Assessing Officer U/S 144 Vide Order Dated 24.12.2019. The Ld. Counsel Further Submitted That Even The Penalty Was Imposed By The Assessing Officer Of Rs.10,000/- U/S 272A(1)(D) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 30.12.2021 Which Was Deleted By The Tribunal On The Ground That There Was Sufficient Cause For Non- Compliance To The Said Notice As The Reasons Were Beyond The Control Of The Assessee. The Ld. Ar Further Submitted That Before The Ld. Cit(A), The

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 271A(1)(d)Section 272A(1)(d)