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

Rama Chandra Jadhav, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-13(2), Pune

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

ITA 2076/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2076/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rama Chandar Jadhav, V The Income Tax Officer, A/P-Ahmadabad, Tal-Shirur, S Ward-13(2), Pune. Dist-Pune – 412218. Pan: Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Smt.Deepa Khare – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 18/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 25/11/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 22.08.2024 For The A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Id Cit(A) Erred In Facts & On Law In Levying The Penalty U/S 270A Under Reporting Misreporting Of Income. 2. The Id Cit(A) Erred In Facts & On Law In Confirming Penalty U/S 270A In Absence Of Specific Limb In The Show Cause Notice Dated 26.12.2019 Under Which The Penalty U/S 270A Is To Be Levied. 3. The Id Cit(A) Erred In Facts & On Law In Confirming Penalty U/S 270A In Absence Of Specific Limb In The Penalty Order Dated 19/01/2022 Under Which The Penalty U/S 270A Is To Be Levied. 4. The Id Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Failing To Consider That The Entire Penalty Proceedings Were Conducted & Concluded During The Covid -19 Pandemic Which Is In Contravention To The Principles Of Natural Justice. 5. The Assesse Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Modify Or Substitute Any Of The Ground Of Appeal At The Time Of Hearing.” Submission Of Ld.Ar : 2. The Ld.Ar Submitted That This Is An Appeal Against The Penalty Order Under Section 270A Of The Act.

Section 250Section 270ASection 89(1)

Aniruddha Kundu, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 62(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1498/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Nov 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1498/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Aniruddha Kundu…..………………........………………....Appellant 604, 99 Spruce Place, Sw, Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, T3C3X7. [Pan: Aphpk9684E] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Midnapore….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.P Datta, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Roma Chaudhury, Jcit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 25, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 25, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.06.2024 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 & Earning Income Abroad During The Relevant Period. The Assessing Officer Obtained Information That Gross Total Income Of The Assessee During The Assessment Year Amounting To Rs.59,49,229/- Was Comprised Of Proceed From Epf Maturity Of Rs.2,56,041/-, Lic Maturity Of Rs.26,92,564/-, Interest Income Of Rs.39/-, Payment Made To Non- Residents Of Rs.331/-. The Assessee Also Made Investment Of Rs.14,00,000/- & Rs.16,00,000/- Into Two Bank Term Deposits Claimed To Be A Genuine Source Of The Income. A Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Issued To The Assessee Followed By Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act.

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-32, Kolkata vs. Bindhya Bashini Traders, Howrah

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1253/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1253/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Acit, Circle-32, Kolkata ……..………………........………………....Appellant Vs. Bindhya Bashini Traders….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent 268/10, Narayani Complex, G.T. Road, Liluah, Howrah, W.B – 711204. [Pan: Aagfb2388A] Appearances By: Shri Roma Chaudhury, Jcit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Miraj D. Shah, Jcit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 25, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 25, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 11.01.2024 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. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted 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