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

Sangeeta Devi, Patna vs. ITO, Ward-6(2), Patna

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 433/PAT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna31 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.433/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sangeeta Devi…………………….....…..…………………....Appellant C/O Sri Sachidanand Prasad, Mohanpur, Punpun, Patna, Bihar-804453. [Pan: Ctmpd6717N] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Patna….….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 30, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 31, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.03.2024 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. No One Has Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee In Spite Of Serving Consecutive Notices Of Hearing & The Tribunal Cannot Keep This Appeal Pending For Indefinite Time Due To Non-Representation. Therefore, In The Absence Of Any Authorised Representative Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Decide The Appeal With The Help Of Ld. Dr & Also Considering The Material Available On Record. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That In The Case Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2016-17, The Assessing Officer Noticed That Certain

Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)

Vandna Gandhi, Patna vs. ACIT, Cir-5, Patna

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 431/PAT/2024[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Patna31 Jan 2025AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.431/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2001-02 Vandna Gandhi………………….....…..…………………....Appellant W/O Sri Azad Gandhi Kila Road, Patna City, Patna- 800008. [Pan: Ainpg4871E] Vs. Acit, Circle-5, Patna…….….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Mahindra Chowdhary, Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 30, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 31, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.05.2023 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. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was Partner In The Firm Namely M/S Raj Construction With 5.43% Share. At The Time Of Firm’S Assessment For The Assessment Year 2001-02, It Was Noted That The Capital Introduced By The Assessee Was Rs.5,00,000/-. This Was The First Year Of The Firm’S Existence Since The Source Of The Capital Introduced Was Not Properly Explained, Therefore, The Assessing Officer Treated The Same As Unexplained Income Of The Firm U/S 68 Of The Act. Based On The Information, The Reassessment Proceedings Were Initiated

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

Murari Prasad Khatri, Patna vs. ITO, Ward-5(2), Patna

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 359/PAT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna31 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.359/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Murari Prasad Khatri………….....…..…………………....Appellant Dadarmandi, G. Bagh, Patnacity, Bihar-800007. [Pan: Attpk3693B] Vs. Ito, Ward-5(2), Patna….….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Rakesh Verma, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 30, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 31, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 04.11.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Jaipur [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 Care Are That In The Case Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2017-18, Assessment Order Was Passed U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Act Vide Order Dated 14.12.2019 By Making Addition Of Rs.10,78,500/- By Treating The Same As Unexplained Income U/S 69 R.W.S 115Bbe Of The Act. 3. Dissatisfied With The Above Order, The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A). Despite Receiving Three Consecutive Notices, The Assessee Failed To Appear Or Present His Case. The Appeal Of The

Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69

Amarkant Mishra, Samastipur vs. ITO, Ward-3 (3), Samastipur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 81/PAT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna31 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.81/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Amarkant Mishra…………………..…..…………………....Appellant Shyam Narayan Mishra Khrihara Sarai Ranjan, Bihar - 848132 [Pan: Aqlpm0409N] Vs. Nfac, Delhi………………….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri K N Prasad, Adv. & Vishal Kr. Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 30, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 31, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.07.2021 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 Filed His Return Of Income By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.3,90,090/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Followed By Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Asking The Assessee To File Various Details. The Assessing Officer On The Basis Of Material Available On Record Noticed That The Assessee Has Claimed Expenditure Of Rs.70,23,840/-. Due To Failure Of The Assessee To Produce Any Documentary Evidence In Support Of His Claim, The Assessing Officer Disallowed 10% Of The Expentiure To The Extent Of Rs.7,02,384/- & Added The Same To The Total Income Of

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 250(6)