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

Debabrata Paul, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 44(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2095/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2095/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Debabrata Paul……….… ……….. ……..……………………....Appellant 5, Bhupen Bose Avenue, Kolkata – 700004. [Pan: Aeypp0909B] Vs. Ito, Ward-44(1), Kolkata…. ….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Gautam Chatterjee, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Susanta Saha & Shri Rajat Datta, Sr. Drs, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 05, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 06, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.08.2024 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 Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2020-21 By Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,83,955/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny In Order To Verify The Agricultural Income Claimed By The Assessee. A Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act Was Issued & In Response To That Notice, The Assessee Submitted His Reply Before The Assessing Officer. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Observed That Rs.44,80,000/- Was Received By The Assessee Which Was Claimed As Exempt Income Purportedly From Sale Of The Agricultural Land. The Assessing Officer However Treated This Amount As

Section 142(1)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 50C(2)

Sekhpara Manikore Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samith Ltd., Balurghat, South Dinajpur vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(1), Balurghat

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2081/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2081/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sekhpara Manikore Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samith Ltd…………………………..………Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocate Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Aagas8001C] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(4), Balurghat…. ….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Susanta Saha & Shri Rajat Datta, Sr. Drs, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 05, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 06, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.08.2024 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 Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Non-Filer Of Income Tax Return For The Assessment Year 2018-19. It Was Found That The Assessee Made Cash Deposit Of Rs.1,57,66,762/- In The Malda District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. During The Financial Year 2017- 18. Since, The Source Of The Deposit Remained Unexplained, The Department Reopned The Case Of The Assessee By Issuing Notice U/S 148 Of The Act After Obtaining Prior Approval From The Competent Authority. In Response To The Notice U/S 148 Of The Act, The Assessee Filed Its Return

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

Gazole L S Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd., Malda vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Malda

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 107/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.107/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Gazole L S Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd.……....Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocate Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Aaaag4743K] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Malda…..…. ….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Susanta Saha, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 06, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 14.12.2023 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’). 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee An Agricultural Marketing Cooperative Society & Engaged In Purchase & Sale Of Agricultural Implements. The Primary Consumers Of The Society Are Members Of Large Number Of Primary Agricultural Society & Their Members In Locality. The Society Claimed Deduction U/S 80P(2)(A)(Iii) & (Iv) Of The Act Contending That The Profit From Its Activity Was Eligible For The Deduction. The Source Of The Cash Deposits In Question Was Attributed To Collections From Sales/Debtors During The Demonetization Period. However, Due To Large Size Of Documents & Vouchers Related To

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)