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

Arup Chatterjee, Maheshtala vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 29(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2286/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.2286/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arup Chatterjee………………………………………………….....Appellant Uttarpara(W), Maheshtala, South 24 Parganas, W.B-700140. [Pan: Amvpc8144N] Vs. Dcit, Circle-29(1), Kolkata….……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ankit Jalan, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanjay Paul, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 23, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 28, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.09.2024 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 Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.3,99,920/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass & The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act With The Same Returned Income Of Rs.3,99,920/-. Thereafter, A Penalty U/S 271B Of The Act Was Levied Due To Failure Of The Assessee To Get His Accounts Audited Which Is Required U/S 44Ab Of The Act. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Viewed That The Assessee Was Required To Get Accounts Audited By A Chartered Accountant & Furnish The Audit Report Before The Due Date If The Turnover Exceeds The

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271BSection 44A

Escee Traders Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Satkriti Properties Pvt. Ltd.), Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1752/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.1752/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Escee Traders Pvt. Ltd (Formerly Known As Satkriti Properties Pvt. Ltd.) ….....Appellant 12Th Floor, Unit 12B, Unimark Asian, 52/1, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata – 700017. [Pan: Aancs7043M] Vs. Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata……….……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri R. C. Jhawer, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Rama Choudhary, Jcit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 28, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13 Against The Order Dated 21.06.2024 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’) Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Dated 26.03.2022. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.19,81,896/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Act Based On Information Received Regarding Bogus Ltcg On Sale Of Shares Of Banas Finance Ltd. It Was Alleged That The Assessee Purchased 55,000 Shares For Rs.30,11,800/- & Sold Them For Rs.10,05,950/- Booking A Loss Of Rs.20,05,850/-. During The Assessment Proceedings, It Was Concluded

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Link Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(4), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1368/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.1368/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Link Commercial Pvt. Ltd...………........………………....Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocate Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Aabcl4354L] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), Kolkata…….……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Pradip Biswas, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 28, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 10.06.2024 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’) Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Challenged The Validity Of Reopening Proceedings U/S 147/148 Of The Act & The Addition Of Rs.2,02,00,000/- Made U/S 68 Of The Act As Unexplained Cash Credit. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.03.2012 By Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.35,061/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Subsequent To That, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Act & A Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued On 31.03.2018 After Obtaining Prior Approval

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

Dalmia Dsp Limited (Formerly Known As Kalyanpur Cements Limited), Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 54/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.54/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dalmia Dsp Ltd………………..………........………………....Appellant 2&3, Lic Building, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Sarani, (Clive Row), Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aabck1273H] Vs. Dcit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata…….……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Navin Verma, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 11, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 28, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.11.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income On 25.09.2010 By Declaring A Total Loss Of Rs.63,97,05,090/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Subseqeuntly, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & A Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued & Assessment Order Was Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 24.01.2013 Determining A Total Loss Of Rs.60,17,78,201/-. Later On, The Case Was Reviewed U/S 263 Of The Act Considering The Assessment Order Dated 24.01.2013 As It Was Found Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue As Per Order Dated 30.03.2015 U/S 263 Of The Act Setting Aside The File To The Assessing

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 43B