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

Income Tax Officer(Exemption), Muzaffarpur vs. Doon Educational Foundation, Pankha Toli, Kazi Mohammadpur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 298/PAT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna17 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.298/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ito (Exemption), Muzaffarpur …………………………………….…..……Appellant Vs. Doon Educational Foundation......…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Kajal Kunj, Pankha Toli, Kazi Mohammadpur, Muzaffarpur, Bihar-842001. [Pan: Aabtd1075H] Appearances By: Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 17, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 17, 2024 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 09.01.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [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 In The Present Appeal, The Tax Effect By The Revenue Is Less Than Rs.60,00,000/-. 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

Muzaffarpur Division Life Ins Corp Employees Co. Credit Society Limited, Muzaffarpur vs. ACIT Cirle 1(1), Muzaffarpur

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 295/PAT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna17 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. Nos.294&295/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2015-16 Muzaffarpur Division Life Ins Corp Employees Coop Credit Society Ltd……Appellant Umashankar Prasad Marg, Ramna, Muzaffarpur, Bihar – 842002. [Pan: Aacam1402D] Vs. Dcit/Acit, Circle-1(1), Muzaffarpur...….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sanjeev Anwar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 16, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 17, 2024 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Separate Orders Dated 22.12.2023 & 12.12.2023 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’) For Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2015-16 Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The 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, The Ld. Ar Submitted That There Is A Delay Of 14 Days & 24 Days In Filing The Instant Appeals Respectively. The Assessee-Society Has Filed Applications For Condonation Of Delay Citing Valid & Proper Reasons. After Considering The Averments Made In The Application, We Condone The Delay.

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Muzaffarpur Division Life Ins Corp Employees Coop Credit Sociuety Ltd, Muzaffarpur vs. DCIT/ACIT-1(1), Muzaffarpur

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 294/PAT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna17 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. Nos.294&295/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2015-16 Muzaffarpur Division Life Ins Corp Employees Coop Credit Society Ltd……Appellant Umashankar Prasad Marg, Ramna, Muzaffarpur, Bihar – 842002. [Pan: Aacam1402D] Vs. Dcit/Acit, Circle-1(1), Muzaffarpur...….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sanjeev Anwar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 16, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 17, 2024 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Separate Orders Dated 22.12.2023 & 12.12.2023 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’) For Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2015-16 Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The 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, The Ld. Ar Submitted That There Is A Delay Of 14 Days & 24 Days In Filing The Instant Appeals Respectively. The Assessee-Society Has Filed Applications For Condonation Of Delay Citing Valid & Proper Reasons. After Considering The Averments Made In The Application, We Condone The Delay.

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Chote Lal Yadav, Siwan vs. ITO, Ward- 2 (3), Siwan

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 293/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna17 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.293/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Chole Lal Yadav…..… ……….. …..…..……………………....Appellant Prop: Ritu Brahm Filling Station, Moglanipur, Asaon, Siwan, Bihar – 841226. [Pan: Abfpy7309A] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(3), Siwan……. ….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sanjeev Kr. Anwar, Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 16, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 17, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 01.01.2024 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. Ar Submitted That There Is A Delay Of 4 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal. The Assessee Has Submitted An Application For Condonation Of Delay Citing Valid & Proper Reasons. After Considering The Averments Made In The Application, We Condone The Delay. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Run A Petrol Pump & Filed His Return Of Income On 29.11.2017 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.12,27,310/-. Therafter, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny On Account Of Cash Deposits During Demonetization & Subsequently Notices U/S

Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)

Shyamendra Kumar, Patna vs. ITO Ward 6(5), Patna

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

ITA 332/PAT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna17 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.332/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shyamendra Kumar..… ……….. ……..……………………....Appellant Sahay Nagar, Jalalpur, Bailey Road, Patna-801506. [Pan: Akmpk4312R] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(5), Patna……. ….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 16, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 17, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.09.2023 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. Brief Facts Of The Care Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Who Entered Into A Land Development Agreement With M/S Laliteshwar Builder, Patna In The Financial Year 2010-11 Relevant To Assessment Year 2011-12. However, The Assessee Failed To File Any Return Of Income For The Relevant Assessment Year, Consequently, A Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued On 28.03.2018 To Bring To Tax The Income Pertaining To Capital Gains Arising Out Of The Transactions Of The Land Development Agreement. Subsequently, A Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued, However, There Was No Compliance From The Assessee. Due To This Non-

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

Arham Gems and Jewellery, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1) (Old Ward-1(3)(1)), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1087/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1087/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Arham Gems & Jewellery The Income Tax Officer C/O. M.S. Chhajed & Co., Ca बनाम/ Ward-1(2)(1) V/S. “Kamal Shanti” [Old Ward-1(3)(1)] Nr.Sardar Patel Statue, Ahmedabad – 380 015 Ahmedabad – 380 014 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aasfa 7013 P (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.S. Chhajed, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18-12-2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld.Cit(A)”] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Arising From The Order Dated 26/12/2019 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”) U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Chhajed, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69ASection 69B

Gouri Singla, Siliguri vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Siliguri

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 488/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.488/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Gouri Singla………….… ……….. ……..……………………....Appellant C/O Paramount Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Mangal Pandey Road, Khalpara, Siliguri- 734005. [Pan: Ajbps9966M] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Siliguri…. ….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, 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 16, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 17, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 15.02.2024 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 & Run A Proprietorship Business & Filed Return Of Income On 29.09.2013 For The Relevant Assessment Year Declaring Total Income Of Rs.7,67,610/. Thereafter, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Act As Per Information Received. Accordingly, Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Was Issued. In Response To The Notices, The Assessee Has Not Furnished The Requisite Details To The Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer Noticed That The Assessee Had Taken Loan Of Rs.22,00,000/- From Various Lenders During The Assessment Year. He Also Noticed That The Assessee Had Also Cash Deposited Of Rs.5,69,000/- In Her Bank Account.

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69A