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

Amol Prataprao Chavan, Sangli vs. ITO, Ward 2, Sangli

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

ITA 1679/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1679/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Amol Prataprao Chavan, V The Income Tax Officer, Patil Chowk, Daphalapur Jath, S Ward-2, Sangli. Sangli – 416402. Pan: Amypc0887B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Manoj Tripathi – Dr Date Of Hearing 27/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Year 2017-18 Dated 28.03.2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1) Ground No.1 On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Ao Erred In Making Addition To Total Income Of Rs.16,54,000/- U/S 68 Without Considering Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 1.1) The Assessee Amol Prataprao Chavan Is An Individual Was Engaged In The Business As " Business Correspondent Agent " He Was Appointed To Facilitate Bank Customers On Behalf Of Bank. He Was Authorised To Accept Cash On Behalf Of Bank As Well As He Was Also Authorised To Give Withdrawals To Customers Of Bank. For Doing This Activity Bank Has Allotted Him Separate Bank Account. His Bank Account Having Account No. 60255628482 Of Bank Of Maharashtra Was That Special Purpose Bank Account . Learned Ao Considered Entire Deposit Of Rs. 16,54,000/- In That Bank Account As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68 .

Section 144Section 234ASection 250Section 271ASection 68

Response India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2071/KOL/2024[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2024AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2071/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Response India Pvt. Ltd.……………........………………....Appellant 103, Tivoli Court, 1C Ballygunge Circular Road, Ballygunge, K Kolkata – 700019. [Pan: Aaccr6178B] Vs. Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata...…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abhijit Adhikari, Jcit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 28, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 28, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.08.2024 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 Filed Its Original Return Of Income Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.3,06,250/-. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act. Subsequently, The Assessing Officer Recorded Reasons To Believe That Certain Income Has Escaped Assessment. Subsequently, Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Act Was Initiated After Obtaining Requisite Approval From The Competent Authority U/S 151 Of The Act. The Assessee Through A Letter Dated 06.11.2012 Requested That The Original Return To Be Treated As Return Filed In Compliance To The Notice U/S 148. Subsequently, Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued To The Assessee. In Compliance To The

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250