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

Shankar Prasad, Nalanda vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.04/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shankar Prasad…………………………………………………..………….……Appellant S/O Yogendra Prasad, Vill-Asthawan, P.O – Asthawan, Biharsharif, Nalanda, Bihar-803107. [Pan: Avnpp3389B] Vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department ……………….........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Rastogi, Sr. Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit - Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 06, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 07, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 22.11.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Did Not File His Return Of Income For The Relevant Assessment Year. The Assessing Officer Got Information That The Assessee Had Made Cash Withdrawals Of Rs.1,37,13,000/- From Current Account Maintained With Canara Bank During F.Y 2017-18 & The Assessee Did Not File Any Itr. Therefore, The Assessing Officer After Obtaining Approval From The Competent Authority Issued Notice U/S 147 R.W.S 148A Of The Act Through Email. In Response To The Notice, The Assessee Filed His Return After A

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 68

Mohammad Parwaiz Alam, Bihar vs. NFAC, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 250/PAT/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Feb 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.249&250/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mohammad Parwaiz Alam………………………………..………….……Appellant Alam Mansion Ararai, Basantpur, Ward-21, Araria, Bihar-854311. [Pan: Agapa6710F] Vs. Nfac, Delhi…………..……....….….. ……………….........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit - Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 06, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 07, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Separate Orders Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since, The Issues Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 7 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeals & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals. 3. No One Has Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee In Spite Of Serving Notices For Hearing On Different Dates. However, An Application Has Been Filed By The Ar Of The Assessee Stating That The Assessee Has Opted To Settle The Tax Dispute Under The Direct Tax Vivad Se Viswas (Dtvsv)

Section 250

Mohammad Parwaiz Alam, Bihar vs. NFAC, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 249/PAT/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Feb 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.249&250/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mohammad Parwaiz Alam………………………………..………….……Appellant Alam Mansion Ararai, Basantpur, Ward-21, Araria, Bihar-854311. [Pan: Agapa6710F] Vs. Nfac, Delhi…………..……....….….. ……………….........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit - Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 06, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 07, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Separate Orders Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since, The Issues Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 7 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeals & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals. 3. No One Has Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee In Spite Of Serving Notices For Hearing On Different Dates. However, An Application Has Been Filed By The Ar Of The Assessee Stating That The Assessee Has Opted To Settle The Tax Dispute Under The Direct Tax Vivad Se Viswas (Dtvsv)

Section 250

Ranjay Kumar Diwakar, Nawada vs. ITO, Ward-2(5), Bihar Sharif

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 227/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.227/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ranjay Kumar Diwakar.………………………………………..………….……Appellant M/S Nidhi Pharma, Purani Jail Road, Nawada, Bihar-805110. [Pan: Aoppd7881R] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(5), Bihar Sharif.……....….….. ……………….........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit - Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 05, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 07, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 12.09.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 79 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause & The Delay Was Not Intentional. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That In The Case Of The Assessee, Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act Was Issued For Calling The Assessee To Submit True & Correct Return Of Income In Respect Of Assessment Year 2017-18 And

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250

Narayani Educational Health and Charitable Trust, Patna vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Patna

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 303/PAT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.301 To 303/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Narayani Educational Health & Charitable Trust……..………….……Appellant A/78, P. C Colony, Kankarbagh, Patna, Bihar-800020. [Pan: Aactn2955K] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-2, Patna....….….. ……………….........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit - Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 05, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 07, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Separate Orders All Dated 28.04.2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) For Assessment Years 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Are Delays Of 106 Days In Filing All The Present Appeals. The Assessee Filed Applications For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Applications, We Find Reasonable Cause Which Was Beyond The Control Of The Assessee & The Delays Were Not Intentional. We, Therefore

Section 153CSection 250Section 263Section 271(1)(b)Section 273B

Narayani Educational Health and Charitable Trust, Patna vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Patna

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 302/PAT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.301 To 303/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Narayani Educational Health & Charitable Trust……..………….……Appellant A/78, P. C Colony, Kankarbagh, Patna, Bihar-800020. [Pan: Aactn2955K] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-2, Patna....….….. ……………….........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit - Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 05, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 07, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Separate Orders All Dated 28.04.2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) For Assessment Years 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Are Delays Of 106 Days In Filing All The Present Appeals. The Assessee Filed Applications For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Applications, We Find Reasonable Cause Which Was Beyond The Control Of The Assessee & The Delays Were Not Intentional. We, Therefore

Section 153CSection 250Section 263Section 271(1)(b)Section 273B

Narayani Educational Health and Charitable Trust, Patna vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Patna

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 301/PAT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.301 To 303/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Narayani Educational Health & Charitable Trust……..………….……Appellant A/78, P. C Colony, Kankarbagh, Patna, Bihar-800020. [Pan: Aactn2955K] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-2, Patna....….….. ……………….........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit - Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 05, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 07, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Separate Orders All Dated 28.04.2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) For Assessment Years 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Are Delays Of 106 Days In Filing All The Present Appeals. The Assessee Filed Applications For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Applications, We Find Reasonable Cause Which Was Beyond The Control Of The Assessee & The Delays Were Not Intentional. We, Therefore

Section 153CSection 250Section 263Section 271(1)(b)Section 273B

M/S Suncity Niketan Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2101/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.2101/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Suncity Niketan Pvt. Ltd………………....….......…....………....Appellant 5, Clive Row, Kolkata -1. [Pan: Aapcs4157E] Vs. Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata......................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 07, 2025 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.12.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.17,99,28,555/- Made By The Assessing Officer By Treating Credits In The Account Of The Assessee As Income Of The Assessee From Unexplained Sources. The Assessee Apart From Challenging The Validity Of The Additions Made/Confirmed By The Lower Authorities On Merits, Has Also Contested The Very Validity Of The Reopening Of The Assessment Order As Well As The Validity Of The Assessment Order For Want Of Issue Of Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act.

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 250