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

Suman Gandhi, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 36(2), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1759/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1759/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Suman Gandhi…………………………....……………………....Appellant E-24/7, Karunamoyee, Sech Bhawan, Salt Lake, Kolkata – 700091. [Pan: Axcpg3145R] Vs. Ito, Ward-36(2), Kolkata…..….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit & Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. Drs, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 23, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.06.2024 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. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessing Officer Initiated Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Act For The Assessment Year 2016-17 Based On The Information Received From Adit(Inv.), Unit-5, Kolkata, Wherein, It Was Observed That The Assessee Had Claimed Income From Investment Of Shares & Loans For Earning Interest, Insurance Commission & Tuition Fees. The Assessing Officer During The Assessment Proceedings Noticed That The Assessee Sold 20,000 & 29,720 Number Of Shares Of Grapco Mining Ltd. & Patheja Forgings Ltd. Respectively Had Been Sold In Physical Form During The Year For Rs.2,00,000/- & Rs.2,97,200/-

Section 147Section 250

Balhanuman Commodities Private Limited, Kolkata vs. CIT(A), NFAC

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1129/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1129/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Balhanuman Commodities Pvt. Ltd..……………………....Appellant 309, B. B. Ganguly Street, W.B – 700012. [Pan: Aadcb6195K] Vs. Cit(A), Nfac………………..….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 17, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 23, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.03.2024 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. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Relevant Assessment Year By Declaring An Income Of Rs.5590/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment. The Case Of The Assessee Was Assessed U/S 144 Of The Act & Statutory Notices Were Issued To The Assessee. But The Notices Could Not Be Served On The Assessee As The Business Of The Assessee Had Been Closed & There Was No Response To The Notices Issued. Due To The Non- Compliance, The Assessing Officer Compelled To Frame The Assessment Order U/S 144 Of The Act. On The Basis Of Material Available On Record, The Assessing Officer Added A Sum Of Rs.30,50,000/- Representing

Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)