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

Suchitra Shashikant Khavare, Hatkanangle, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ichalkaranji

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

ITA 1426/PUN/2024[AY 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Dec 2024

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1426/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Suchitra Shashikant Khavare, V The Income Tax Officer, At Post Shiroli Pulachi S Ichalkaranji. Htkanangle, Konhapur – 416122. Pan: Aowpk8959A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Rajesh Gawalil – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 17.05.2024 For The A.Y.2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Cit(A), Nfac Erred In, Not Condoning The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Thereby Confirming The Penalty Levied U/S 271(1)(C) On The Addition Made By The Ao Of Rs.15,00,000/- U/S 69 Representing Investment In Immovable Property.” Submission Of Ld.Ar : 2. The Ld.Ar For The Assessee Submitted That This Is An Appeal Against Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act. The Quantum Addition Has Been Set-Aside By Itat To Ld.Cit(A) Vide Its Order In Ita No.1410/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2013-14. Submission Of Ld.Dr : 3. Ld.Dr For The Revenue Submitted That Penalty May Also Be Set-Aside To The Ld.Cit(A).

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

Rekha Rani Sur, West Bengal vs. Assistant Commissioner Circle 23(1)Hooghly, West Bengal

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1982/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1982/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rekha Rani Sur…….… ……….. ……..……………………....Appellant Swami Avayananda Lane, Bhadreswar, Hooghly – 712124. [Pan: Akaps2635P] Vs. Acit, Circle-23(1), Hooghly. ….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Arka Ghosh, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr & Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 20, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.07.2024 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 Is An Individual & Filed Her Return Of Income On 25.10.2017 For The Relevant Assessment Year By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.30,75,080/. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued. After Examining The Facts, The Assessing Officer Made The Additions Of Rs.4999440/- In Respect Of Cash Deposits Made During The Demonetization Period & Rs.5900720/- In Respect Of Disallowance Of Expenses Claimed By The Assessee.

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 250(6)

M/S. Pa Footwear Pvt. Ltd., Gummidipoondi vs. DCIT, Company Circle, Chennai

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

ITA 2733/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2733/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2020-21 Pa Footwear Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner 314/C, S R Kandigai Road, Vs. Of Income Tax, Pappankuppam Village, Circle 1, Ltu, Gummidipoondi – 601 201. Chennai. Pan: Aaacp 1923G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.12.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Cit(A) - Nfac Order Dated 27.08.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2020-21. 2. At The Very Outset, We Notice That The Cit(A) Has Passed An Ex-Parte Order. The Reason For Passing An Ex-Parte Order Is That The Assessee Did Not Respond To The Five Notices Issued From The Office Of The First Appellate Authority.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 2(24)(xviii)Section 250

Sabari Foundation Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-6(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2702/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2702/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2015-16 Sabari Foundation Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, Old No.5, New No.9, Vs. Corporate Ward 6(1), Seethammal Colony Extn., Chennai. Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aaecs 0298R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar,Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.12.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Cit(A) - Nfac Order Dated 20.06.2022, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2015-16. 2. There Is A Delay Of 795 Days In Filing This Appeal. The Assessee Company Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein The Reasons For Belated Filing Of This Appeal Along With Affidavit Of The Director Of The Assessee Company. The Reasons Stated In The Condonation Petition For Belated Filing Of This Appeal Are As Under:- “The Managing Director Of The Appellant Company Aged Around 59 Years Old Was Unwell Owing To Multiple Business Failures & Closed Businesses & The Appellant Company Was Also Closed & Deleted/Struck Off From The Roc, Chennai Vide Order Dated 09.08.2018 Due To Which There Were No Employees In The Company During The Pendency Of The First Appeal Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar,CIT
Section 250