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

Paresh R Pujara HUF, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward-27(2)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 4231/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Paresh R Pujara Huf Ito Ward 27(2)(5) Room No. 421, 4Th Floor, A-3/10, Chitaranjan Nagar, Rajawadi Ghatkopar (E), Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway Station, Vs. Mumbai-400 077 Commercial Complex, Vashi, Mumbai-400 703 Pan/Gir No. Aajhp 4668 L (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Shashank Mehta : Shri Tushar Mohite Respondent By : 17.10.2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2024 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘Ld.Cit(A) For Short),National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Cit (Appeals) Has, Erred In Upholding The Assessment Order Passed In Gross Violation Of The Principle Of Natural Justice. 2. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Cit (Appeals) Has Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Without Condoning The Delay In Filing The Appeal. 3. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Cit (Appeals), Mumbai Has Erred In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.

For Appellant: Shri Shashank MehtaFor Respondent: 17.10.2024
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

Mukesh Kumar, Patna vs. ITO, Patna

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 383/PAT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna27 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice- & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.383/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mukesh Kumar (Huf)……………………………..........................……….……Appellant Flat No.13G, Patliputra Path, Rajendra Nagar, Patna-800016. [Pan: Aadhm2150E] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(5), Patna….............……...…………………………………....…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Rastogi, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ajay Kr. Shukla, Jcit(Sr. Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 21, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 27, 2024 Order Per Sanjay Awasthi: 1. This Appeal Emanates From Order U/S 250 Dated 03.04.2024 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’]. 1.1 In This Case, It Is Seen That The Assessing Officer Added An Amount Of Rs.61,35,481/- Through Extremely Cryptic Findings. At First Appeal Stage, It Is Mentioned In The Facts, That The Ld. Cit(A) Called For A Remand Report On The Basis Of Documents Filed By The Assessee. However, It Appears That Even Without Waiting For The Said Report, The Ld. Cit(A) Proceeded Ahead With The Adjudication & Through An Extremely Brief Order Confirmed The Action Of The Assessing Officer. 2. Aggrieved With This Action Of The Ld. Cit(A), The Assessee Has Approached The Itat Through As Many As 11 Grounds Of Appeal. However, The Ld. Ar Urged Us To Decide On Ground Nos.1,2 & 3 Before Proceeding Any Further In The Matter. These Three Grounds May Be Reproduced For Reference:

Section 250

Manab Chandra Ghosh, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 1(2), It, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 40/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.40/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Manab Chandra Ghosh………………..……………………………….…..……Appellant 5A, Banerjee Para, Behala, Kol-700060. [Pan: Ahspg9975H] Vs. Acit, Circle-1(2), It-Kolkata..........…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pradip Kr. Biswas, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 19, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 27, 2024 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.11.2022 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Employee Of Ibm India Pvt. Ltd. (An Indian Company With Registered Office In Bangalore) & Was Undergone A Short-Term Assignment To Indonesia During The Relevant Assessment Year. During The Financial Year 2015-16, The Stayed 61 Days In India As Evident By The Passport Details Submitted Before The Assessing Officer. Consequently, The Assessee Claimed To Be A Non-Resident For The Assessment Year 2016-17 As Per The Provisions Of The Income Tax Act. During The Assessment Year In Question, The Assessee Received Salary Amounting To Rs.29,57,760/- In India, On Which Rs.7,06,207/- Was Deducted As Tax At Source As Per Form No.16 Filed By The Assessee. During The Relevant Assessment Year, The Assessee Also

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 5(2)Section 5(2)(b)