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

Baraka Newland Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-2, Coimbatore

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

ITA 3010/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3010/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Baraka Newland Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of No.206, Spring Field Park, Vs. Income Tax, No.49, Subramanier Koil Street, Corporate Circle-2, Ramanathapuram, Coimbatore. Coimbatore Tamil Nadu-641045 [Pan: Aaecb8391A] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.Tarun, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Eswaran, Jcit : 21.01.2025 सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : This Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Bearing Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1069148705(1) Dated 26.09.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Herein After “Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[Nfac], Delhi, For The Assessment Years 2017-18. Through The Aforesaid Appeal The Assesse Has Challenged Order U/S 250 Dated 26.09.2024 Passed By Nfac, Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri G.Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Eswaran, JCIT
Section 250

Avm Autos, Pudukottai vs. ITO, Ward-1, Pudukottai

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

ITA 3002/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3002/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 M/S. Avm Autos, The Income Tax Officer, 9954/P-1, Alangudi Road, Vs. Ward-1, Pudukottai – 622 001. Pudukottai. Pan: Aajfa 2158E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Easwar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.01.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Cit(A)/Nfac’S Order Dated 30.04.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-18. 2. There Is A Delay Of 148 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 Reasons Stated In The Condonation Application For Belated Filing Of This Appeal Are As Under:- “The Order U/S.250 Was Passed By The Ld.Cit(A) On 30/04/2024. The Appellant Had Closed The Business During The Year 2017-18 Completely. The Mail Address & Mobile Number As Per The Income Tax Profile Was Not Monitored By The Partner Of The Appellant-Firm, Due To Which The Appellant Was Also Not Aware Of Any Of The Notice & Order Related To Appeal Proceedings. However Based On The Demand Raised By The Concerned Jurisdiction Officer, The Appellant Came To Know That Appeal Was Disposed Off By The Ld.Cit(A), Immediately, The Order Was Downloaded From The Portal & The Appeal Was Prepared By The Auditor. The Appellant Filed An Appeal Eventually Filed On 02.12.2024.”

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Easwar, JCIT
Section 144Section 250