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

Anil Kumar Paik, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 8(1), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 493/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. Nos.492 To 494/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2018-19 Anil Kumar Paik……………………………..……………………………...……Appellant C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kol-1. [Pan: Aflpp6567R] Vs. Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata…………....….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. Cit – Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 01, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 02, 2025 Order Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For Different Assessment Years I.E 2016-17 & 2018-19 Against Separate Orders 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’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In These 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, We Find That The Appeals Have Been Pending For Considerable Period & No One Has Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee But Simply Filed An Application By Which The Assessee Sought An Adjournment Of The Case For Today. On Perusal Of Records, We Find That Multiple Dates Of Hearing Were Scheduled But The Assessee Failed To

Section 250Section 250(6)Section 270ASection 68

Anil Kumar Paik, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 8(1), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 492/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. Nos.492 To 494/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2018-19 Anil Kumar Paik……………………………..……………………………...……Appellant C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kol-1. [Pan: Aflpp6567R] Vs. Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata…………....….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. Cit – Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 01, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 02, 2025 Order Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For Different Assessment Years I.E 2016-17 & 2018-19 Against Separate Orders 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’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In These 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, We Find That The Appeals Have Been Pending For Considerable Period & No One Has Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee But Simply Filed An Application By Which The Assessee Sought An Adjournment Of The Case For Today. On Perusal Of Records, We Find That Multiple Dates Of Hearing Were Scheduled But The Assessee Failed To

Section 250Section 250(6)Section 270ASection 68

DCIT, Circle-5(1), Kolkata vs. Uco Bank Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 288/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.288/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata……………..………………………….…..……Appellant Vs. Uco Bank Ltd………………..............…..….…..……........……...…..…..Respondent 10 B.T.M. Sarani, Bbd Bag, Kol-1. [Pan: Aaacu3561B] Appearances By: Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sonu Agarwal, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 02, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 02, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 24.02.2023 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, We Notice That There Is A Delay Of 294 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal. The Revenue Has Submitted An Application For Condonation Of Delay Citing Reasonable Grounds. After Considering The Averments Made In The Application, We Condone The Delay. 3. The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That In The Present Case, The Tax Effect By The Revenue Is Less Than Rs.60,00,000/-. He Further Stated That The Cbdt Has Issued A Circular No. 9/2024 Dated 17.09.2024, Whereby The Monetary Limits For Filing Of Appeal By The Department Before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal & High Courts & Slp Before Supreme Court Have Been Increased As A Measure For Reducing Litigation. The

Section 250

M/S. Subhrashi Enclave Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, 10 (2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1963/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1963/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Subhrashi Enclave Pvt. Ltd...…..…………………....Appellant 14-C, M.D. Road, 4Th Floor, Kolkata – 700007. [Pan: Aascs6378Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-10(2), Kolkata…. ….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit & Somnath Das & Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. Drs, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 02, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 01.09.2023 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. The Appeal Is Time-Barred By 324 Days. An Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed, Which Is Also Supported With The Affidavit Of Shri Subhash Sharma, The Director Of The Assessee Company, Wherein, It Has Been Pleaded That The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) Was Passed On 01.09.2023 But The Order Was Communicated To The Assessee On 03.09.2024. Immediately, The Assessee Engaged An Authorized Representative & Filed The Appeal. The Ld. Ar Further Stated That The Notice & Also The Impugned Order Were Not Duly Served Upon The Assessee Due To Mismatch Of Email Address Which Was Provided In Form 35. Therefore, The Assessee Was Not Aware Of The Passing Of The

Section 143(2)Section 250

Arnab Kumar Goswami, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 62(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1710/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1710/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arnab Kumar Goswami……….. ……..…..…………………....Appellant Flat – 1C, Subham Apartment, Narayantala East, Baguiati, Kolkata – 700059. [Pan: Ahbpg0395G] Vs. Ito, Ward-62(1), Kolkata…. ….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Dilip Sahu, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. Drs, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 01, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.06.2024 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’). 2. The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income U/S 139(1) Of The Act By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.3,52,310/- During The Relevant Assessment Year. The Assessee Purchased An Immovable Property At Rajarhat At Sale Consideration Of Rs.25,00,000/-. However, The Stamp Duty Value Of The Property As Per Deed Of Conveyance Dated 05.09.2016 Was Rs.35,36,655/-. The Difference Of Rs.10,36,655/- Was Splitted Between The Assessee & His Spouse Amounting To Rs.5,18,327/-. Accordingly, The Assessing Officer Invoked Section 56(2)(Vii) Of The Act & Added Rs.5,18,327/- To The Total Income Of The Assessee As ‘Income From Other Sources’ While Framing Assessment. The

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 149(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 151(1)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

Income Tax Officer, Kolkata vs. Kamlapati Properties Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1595/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1595/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ito, Kolkata…….………………………..………………………….…..……Appellant Vs. Kamlapati Properties Pvt. Ltd.............…..….…..……........……...…..…..Respondent 2Nd Floor, 30, Chittaranjan Avenue, Bowbazar, W.B. – 700012. [Pan: Aaeck6866F] Appearances By: Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 01, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 01, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 21.03.2024 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. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Cbdt Has Issued A Circular No. 9/2024 Dated 17.09.2024, Whereby The Monetary Limits For Filing Of Appeal By The Department Before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal & High Courts & Slp Before Supreme Court Have Been Increased As A Measure For Reducing Litigation. The Revised Monetary Limits Laid Down In Para-2 Of This Circular Are As Follows:

Section 250