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

Phoenix Hitech Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Central Circle - 1(3), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1824/KOL/2024[2009-2010]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.1824/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Phoenix Hitech Pvt. Ltd….…………………………………………….…..……Appellant 20, B. T. Road, Kolkata-700002. [Pan: Aadcp7251J] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Kolkata..............….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Prakash Nath Barnwal, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 29, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 22, 2024 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.07.2024 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 Assessee Filed Its Income Tax Return On 24.09.2009 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.83,95,690/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices Were Issued U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act & Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Was Completed On 29.12.2011 With A Total Assessed Income Of Rs.93,95,690/-. Later On, The Assessing Officer Noticed That The Assessee Had Received A Loan Of Rs.2,11,39,885/- From M/S H. S. Infrastructure & Services Pvt. Ltd. During The Relevant Financial Year. Both The Assessee & M/S H. S. Infrastructure & Services Pvt. Ltd. Has Common Shareholders Namely Shri Haranjit Singh & Mr. Subash Bera Holding More Than 10% Of The Share Capital In Both Companies. The Assessing

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 263

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption Circle Patna, Patna vs. Chanakya National Law University, Nayay Nagar

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 342/PAT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna21 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice- & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.342/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Acit(Exemption), Patna..........................................................……….……Appellant Vs. Chanakya National Law University, Nayay Nagar.............……...…..…..Respondent Mithapur, Patna, Bihar – 800001. [Pan: Aaajc0528M] Appearances By: Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri A. K. Rastogi, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 18, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 21, 2024 Order Per Sanjay Awasthi: 1. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 07.02.2024 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’). 1.1 In This Case, There Were Primarily Two Issues Which Were Before The Assessing Officer, Namely, The Issue Of Delayed Filing Of Form 10 Which Was Required U/S 11(2) R.W.S. 13(9) Of The Act & Secondly, The Issue Of An Amount Of Rs.3,58,00,000/- Which Was Added As Technically Being A Receipt Which Had Not Been Offered For Tax By The Assessee. Needless To Say, The Amount Of Rs.3,58,00,000/- Was Added & The Benefit Of Carry Forward Of Surplus Income Was Denied Since The Form 10 Was Not Filed In Time. 2. This Matter Was Carried In Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) & There The Issue Of Rs.3,58,00,000/- Was Allowed As Relief On The Ground That The Impugned Amount Was Apparently Debited Internally & Shown As

Section 11(2)Section 250

Anilkumar Dwarkaprasad Modani, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1)(1)(Previously Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)), Vadodara

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

ITA 1572/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1572/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Anilkumar Dwarkaprasad Modani The Dy.Cit बनाम/ A-17, Videocon Housing Colony Circle-2(1)(1) V/S. Chavaj, Bharuch 392 002 Vadodara (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Acnpm 0273 C अपीलाथ&/ (Appellant) '( यथ&/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hemant Suthar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/11/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26/12/2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14, In Which The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao)”] Under Section 50C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] Was Confirmed Vide Assessment Order Dated 28/03/2016. Facts Of The Case: 2. The Assessee, An Individual Earning Income From Salaries, Trading In Shares & Securities, Capital Gains & Other Sources, Filed His Return Of Anilkumar Dwarkaprasad Modani Vs. The Dcit Asst. Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Suthar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 50C(2)