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

Saswati Samai, Kolkata vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru, Centralised Processing Centre

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1871/KOL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Dec 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1871/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Saswati Samai…….… ……….. ……..……………………....Appellant E-20/7, Karunamoyee Housing Estate, Block-Ed, Sector-11, North 24 Parganas, Salt Lake, Sech Bhawan, W.B – 700091. [Pan: Aztps5513N] Vs. Acit, Cpc, Bengaluru…. ….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. Jhajharia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rajat Datta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 02, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 03, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.07.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Nagpur [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 Employee Of Ibm India Pvt. Ltd. & Filed Return For Assessment Year 2009-10 Reporting A Higher Income Of Rs.11,59,031/- With Tds Of Rs.3,32,206/-, However, Actual Taxable Income As Per Form 16 & Form 26As Was Rs.2,01,865/- With Tds Of Rs.5,824/-. The Return Of The Assessee Was Processed U/S 143(1) By Cpc, Bengaluru Leading To A Demand Of Rs.4,38,868/- Which Was Later Adjusted With Refund Of A.Y 2012-13 As Per Intimation Order Of A.Y 2012-13. Upon Receiving The Information

Section 143(1)Section 250

Syed Sirajuddin Mir, Sujagalpur Kalsa, Falta vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 10(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1861/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1861/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Syed Sirajuddin Mir… ……….. ……..……………………....Appellant Sujagalpur Kalsa, Falta, South 24 Parganas, West Bengal – 743503. [Pan: Avlpm4850A] Vs. Acit, Circle-10(1), Kolkata ….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Swarup C Kayal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rajak Datta, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 02, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 03, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.07.2024 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. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That A Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act Was Issued On 23.03.2018 Directing The Assessee To File A True & Correct Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Notice Was Sent By Post Requiring The Assessee To Furnish Return As Prescribed Under Rule 12 Of The Income Tax Rules, 1962. However, The Assessee Has Failed To File Return U/S 139 Of The Act Or In Response To The Notice Issued U/S 142(1) Of The Act Before 31.03.2018. Based On Data Analytics, It Was Found By The Assessing Officer That The Assessee Had Deposited Substantial Amount Of Cash Of Rs.25,20,000/- In His Bank Account During The Demonetization Period I.E. 09.11.2016 To

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250

Mohammad Sahadat Ali, Fatehpur vs. AO (National Faceless Assessment Centre), Delhi

In the result, appeals in ITA No

ITA 148/ALLD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad29 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.138, 139,147 & 148/Alld/2024 A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Mohammad Sahadat Ali, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sayyad Nagar, Khakhreru, National Faceless Assessment Khaga, Fatehpur Centre Pan:Cunpa0977K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Aditya Chhajed & Sh. Shivang, Advocates Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Four Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Vide Separate Orders Dated 8.07.2024. The Grounds Of Appeal In All These Cases Are Identical & Are Reproduced As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac). Delhi U/S 250 Of The Act Is Bad Both In The Eye Of Law & On Facts. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) (Nfac) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Appellant On The Grounds Of Non-Submission Of Documents By The Appellant Without Considering The Submitted Document & The Facts Of The Case. The Appellant, Therefore, Prays That The Impugned Order Be Set Aside. A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Mohammad Sahadat Ali

For Appellant: Sh. Aditya Chhajed & Sh. ShivangFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 2(30)Section 250Section 6(1)Section 69

Mohammad Sahadat Ali, Fatehpur vs. Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre

In the result, appeals in ITA No

ITA 147/ALLD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad29 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.138, 139,147 & 148/Alld/2024 A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Mohammad Sahadat Ali, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sayyad Nagar, Khakhreru, National Faceless Assessment Khaga, Fatehpur Centre Pan:Cunpa0977K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Aditya Chhajed & Sh. Shivang, Advocates Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Four Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Vide Separate Orders Dated 8.07.2024. The Grounds Of Appeal In All These Cases Are Identical & Are Reproduced As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac). Delhi U/S 250 Of The Act Is Bad Both In The Eye Of Law & On Facts. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) (Nfac) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Appellant On The Grounds Of Non-Submission Of Documents By The Appellant Without Considering The Submitted Document & The Facts Of The Case. The Appellant, Therefore, Prays That The Impugned Order Be Set Aside. A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Mohammad Sahadat Ali

For Appellant: Sh. Aditya Chhajed & Sh. ShivangFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 2(30)Section 250Section 6(1)Section 69

M/S Auto King, Allahabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Allahabad

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 146/ALLD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad29 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.145, 146/Alld/2024 A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2018-19 M/S Auto King, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sultanpur Khas, Mauaima, Ward-1(1), Allahabad Allahabad Pan:Aaofm6183C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.K. Jaiswal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Two Appeals Have Been Filed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act For The Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2018-19 Vide Separate Orders Dated 31.07.2024. As The Issues Involved In These Two Appeals Are Same, The Same Are Taken Up For Disposal By Way Of Common Order. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No. 145/Alld/2024 Are Reproduced As Under:- “1. Because The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Dismissing Appeal By Holding That The Appellant Is Not Keen To Pursue The Appeal Without Giving An Adequate & Effective Opportunity Of Being Heard. 2. Because The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Dismissing Appeal In Limine Without Giving Any Finding On The Statement Of Facts As Filed Along With Memo Of Appeal. A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2018-19 M/S Auto King

For Appellant: Sh. S.K. Jaiswal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 234ASection 250Section 44ASection 69A

M/S Auto King, Allahabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Allahabad

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 145/ALLD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad29 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.145, 146/Alld/2024 A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2018-19 M/S Auto King, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sultanpur Khas, Mauaima, Ward-1(1), Allahabad Allahabad Pan:Aaofm6183C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.K. Jaiswal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Two Appeals Have Been Filed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act For The Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2018-19 Vide Separate Orders Dated 31.07.2024. As The Issues Involved In These Two Appeals Are Same, The Same Are Taken Up For Disposal By Way Of Common Order. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No. 145/Alld/2024 Are Reproduced As Under:- “1. Because The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Dismissing Appeal By Holding That The Appellant Is Not Keen To Pursue The Appeal Without Giving An Adequate & Effective Opportunity Of Being Heard. 2. Because The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Dismissing Appeal In Limine Without Giving Any Finding On The Statement Of Facts As Filed Along With Memo Of Appeal. A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2018-19 M/S Auto King

For Appellant: Sh. S.K. Jaiswal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 234ASection 250Section 44ASection 69A