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

Mustak Rajjak Kapade, Ratnagiri vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ratnagiri

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 889/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.889/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mustak Rajjak Kapade, V The Income Tax Officer, C/O.Bipin Shaha, 1756, Jutica, S Ward-1,Ratnagiri. Teli Ali, Ratnagiri – 415612. Pan: Bpzpk7653G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Anup Bipin Shaha – Ar Shri Akhilesh Srivastava –Addl.Cit(Dr) Revenue By Date Of Hearing 06/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/01/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 For Assessment Year 2012-13; Dated 27.02.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Failed To Appreciate The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case By Confirming The Addition Of Rs.4,00,000/- Pertaining To Cash Deposits In The Month Of October, 2011 & Such Addition Made By Ld.Ao Is Merely On Basis Of Guess Work & Surmise. The Ld.Cit(A) & The Ld.Ao Erred In Appreciating The Explanation Furnished By The Assessee In Respect Of Such Cash Deposit & Made An Addition Which Is Against The Provisions & Spirit Of The Act. The Said Addition Be Deleted & The Assessee Be Granted Just & Proper Relief In This Respect.

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Parthasarathi, Tirupattur vs. ITO, Ward 2, Vellore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 635/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.635 /Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2015-16 Parthasarathi, Income Tax Officer, No.253, Big Bazaar Street, Ward-2, Tirupattur, Vellore Tamil Nadu - 635601. [Pan: Apepp1040E] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri P.M.Kathir, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Sheila Parthasarthy, Addl.Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.12.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2025 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/250/2023-24/1060281013(1) Dated 30.01.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Herein After “Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[Nfac], Delhi, For The Assessment Years 2015- 16. Through The Aforesaid Appeal The Assesse Has Challenged Order U/S 250 Dated 30.01.2024 Passed By Nfac, Delhi. 2.0 The Assessee Has Raised Nine Grounds Of Appeal. As All The Grounds Of Appeal Are Centering Upon Addition Of Rs. 33,10,000/- , Made

For Appellant: Shri P.M.Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Sheila Parthasarthy, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263

K.G. Boopathi, Vellore vs. ITO, Ward-2, Vellore

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

ITA 2372/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2372 /Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2017-18 K.G.Boopathi, Income Tax Officer, Periya Kasinaickappati Village & Non Corp, Ward-2, Post, Kandili Tirupattur, Vellore Vellore-635901. [Pan: Apdpb5581R] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri M.Karunakaran, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Sheila Parthasarthy, Addl.Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.12.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2025 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/250/2023-24/1057454214(1) Dated 27.10.2023 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 27.10.2023 Passed By Nfac, Delhi. 2.0 It Has Been Noted That There Is A Delay Of 255 Days In The Case, In Filing Of This Appeal Before The Tribunal. In Its Affidavit The Assesse Has Pleaded That The Ld.Cit(A) Had Called For A Remand Report From The Ld. Ao, Consequent To Which Assessee Had Filed Requested Details Before The Page - 1 - Of 4 :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Shri M.Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Sheila Parthasarthy, Addl.CIT
Section 144Section 144ASection 250