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

Bablu Sarkar, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-25(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 869/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.869/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Bablu Sarkar………………………………………………………….…..……Appellant B-28, Paschim Putiary, Kolkata – 700041. [Pan:Bqpps6351C] Vs. Ito, Ward-25(1), Kolkata............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ashu Poddar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pradip Biswas, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 19, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 20, 2024 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.02.2024 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’) For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under E-Assessment Scheme 2019 In Order To Examine Cash Deposits Made During The Assessment Year Under Consideration. The Assessment Order Was Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144B Of The Act. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 29.08.2018 By Declaring Total Taxable Income Of Rs.3,08,880/-. A Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued Followed By A Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act. However, The Assessee Did Not Submit Any Reply In Compliance To The Notices Issued By The Assessing Officer. Based On The Details Or Records Available With The Department, The Assessing Officer Observed That During The Financial Year 2017-18, The Assessee Had Deposited Rs.4,19,23,772/- In

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

Chunakhali Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd., Murshidabad vs. ITO, Ward-42(1), Murshidabad

ITA 186/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.186/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Chunakhali Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd....................……….……Appellant Chunakhali, Gopinathpur, Murshidabad-742149. [Pan: Aaatc5443M] Vs. Ito, Ward-42(1), Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. Das Sarma, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanjay Paul, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 23, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 20, 2024 Order Per Sanjay Awasthi: 1. In This Case There Is A Delay Of 151 Days In The Filing Of This Appeal. The Same Has Been Requested For Condonation Through An Affidavit Dated18.1.2023. The Main Reasons For The Said Delay Have Been Mentioned As Lack Of Timely Legal Advice On The Next Steps, In The Face Of An Adverse Order From The Ld. Ao. It Is Also Mentioned In The Said Affidavit That The Legal Counsel Eventually Engaged For The Purpose Fell Ill, Leading To Further Delay. 1.1 The Reasons For Delay Have Been Considered & It Is Clear That In The Interest Of Substantive Justice, This Appeal Deserves To Be Admitted For Adjudication. 2. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.09.2023 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’).

Section 250

Mohammed Taj, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 3(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1184/KOL/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1184/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Mohammed Taj……….………………………..……….………….…..……Appellant 11, Balmukund Macker Road, Kolkata – 700007. [Pan: Aaccpt0441J] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-3(1), Kolkata.…....…………..…........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri A. Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 20, 2024 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.03.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Kolkata [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 & Filed Its Return Of Income On 26.03.2022 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.38,93,560/- U/S Section 139 Of The Act. Subsequently, A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Of The Act Was Conducted On 13.01.2021 In The Case Of Hospitality Group Of Cases To Which The Assessee Belongs. The Search Operation Extended To The Premises Of The Assessee At 11, Bal Mukund Mackar Road, Khaja House, Barabazar, Kolkata-700007. Following The Search Operation, The Case Of The Assessee Was Centralized With Central Circle-3(1), Kolkata & Subsequently, The Case Was Transferred To The Pr. Cit-13, Kolkata. Consequently, A Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued Which Was Followed By Issuing A Notice U/S 142(1)

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69C