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

Murthi K Ranganathan, Krishnagiri vs. ITO, Ward-1, Krishnagiri

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

ITA 3201/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3201/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Murthi K.Ranganathan, Income Tax Officer, 109-D, Kannukannoor Vs. Ward-1 Valipatti Panchayat, Krishnagiri. Pochampalli Taluk, Rangampatti, Krishnagiri-635 306. Pan: Aonpm-7495-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. Girish Kumar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.Gauthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Cit(A) - Nfac Order Dated 23.11.2023, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2012-13. 2. There Is A Delay Of 320 Days In Filing This Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With Affidavit Stating Therein The Reasons For Belated Filing Of This Appeal. The Reason Stated For Belated Filing Of This Appeal Is That Assessee Was Suffering From Severe Health Ailments I.E., L-5 Listhesis, Disc Bulge & Cervical Spondylosis, Due To Which The Assessee Was Unable To Follow The Chartered Accountant To Present The Appeal. The Ld. Ar Submitted That Owing To Health Issues, Lack Of Conversant With Electronic Proceedings & The Period Which Pertains To Fag End Of Covid-19, There Was Delay In The Filing This Appeal. Therefore, The Ld.Ar Pleaded For Condonation Of Delay. The Medical Certificates To Effect That Assessee Was Suffering From The Above Ailments Are Placed On Record.

For Appellant: Mr. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Gauthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 250

Star Drugs & Research Labs Pvt. Ltd., Hosur vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Salem

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3177/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3176 & 3177/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Star Drugs & Research Labs Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax, 2Nd Floor, 16C/16D/16E/16F, Circle-1(1) Star Shoping Complex, Salem. Old Krishnagiri Road, Hosur-635 109. Pan: Aaecs-3826-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms.Richa Bakiwala & Mr.P.Hemasundara Rao, Advocates ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Mr.A.Sasikumar,Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per George George K: These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Of Cit(A) - Nfac Both Dated 09.01.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013- 14. Ita No.3176 & 3177//Chny/2024 2. There Is A Delay Of 256 Days In Filing These Appeals. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With Affidavit Of The Director Stating Therein The Reasons For Belated Filing Of These Appeals. The Reason Stated For Belated Filing Of These Appeals Is That Assessee Had Engaged New Tax Consultant & There Was No Proper Communication Between The Present & Old Consultants & Due To Lack Of Co-Ordination & Oversight, Necessary Compliance Could Not Be Made Within The Prescribed Time Limit. It Was Further Submitted In The Affidavit That Deponent’S Brother, Who Was Also A Director In The Assessee Company Was Suffering From Severe Illness During The Course Of Appellate Proceedings & He Unfortunately Expired In September, 2024 After Prolonged Illness.

For Appellant: Ms.Richa Bakiwala &For Respondent: Mr.A.Sasikumar,CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Star Drugs & Research Labs Pvt. Ltd., Hosur vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Salem

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3176/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3176 & 3177/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Star Drugs & Research Labs Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax, 2Nd Floor, 16C/16D/16E/16F, Circle-1(1) Star Shoping Complex, Salem. Old Krishnagiri Road, Hosur-635 109. Pan: Aaecs-3826-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms.Richa Bakiwala & Mr.P.Hemasundara Rao, Advocates ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Mr.A.Sasikumar,Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per George George K: These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Of Cit(A) - Nfac Both Dated 09.01.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013- 14. Ita No.3176 & 3177//Chny/2024 2. There Is A Delay Of 256 Days In Filing These Appeals. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With Affidavit Of The Director Stating Therein The Reasons For Belated Filing Of These Appeals. The Reason Stated For Belated Filing Of These Appeals Is That Assessee Had Engaged New Tax Consultant & There Was No Proper Communication Between The Present & Old Consultants & Due To Lack Of Co-Ordination & Oversight, Necessary Compliance Could Not Be Made Within The Prescribed Time Limit. It Was Further Submitted In The Affidavit That Deponent’S Brother, Who Was Also A Director In The Assessee Company Was Suffering From Severe Illness During The Course Of Appellate Proceedings & He Unfortunately Expired In September, 2024 After Prolonged Illness.

For Appellant: Ms.Richa Bakiwala &For Respondent: Mr.A.Sasikumar,CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)