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

M/S. Anoop Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd., Siliguri vs. D.C.I.T., Central Circle - 4(3), Kolkata

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

ITSSA 102/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.(Ss)A. No.102/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Anoop Tea Co. Private Limited .………. Appellant C/O, M/S. Salarpuria Jajodia & Co. 7, C. R. Avenue, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700072. (Pan: Aacca1872F) Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata ………. Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. Jhajharia, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant Shri Prakash Nath Barnwal, Cit, Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent Date Of Concluding The Hearing :October 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order :November 18, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.06.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata-27 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14. 2. At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Invited Our Attention To The Impugned Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Which Is An Ex Parte Order. A Separate Affidavit Has Been Filed Explaining The Reasons For Non-Compliance Before The Ld. Cit(A), Wherein, It Has Been Mentioned That The Concerned Dealing Staff Who Was Looking After The Said Taxation Matter Of The Company Was Not Keeping Well & Had Left The Services. The New Incumbent Joined In April, 2024 And, Therefore, The Notices

Section 153CSection 250

S T Co-Operative Credit Society, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 5(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2136/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2136/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 S T Co-Operative Credit V The Income Tax Officer, Society, S Ward-5(1), Pune. Swargate S T Depo, Veer Savarkar Nagar, Swargate Bus Stand, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aabas6856L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Dr Date Of Hearing 13/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/11/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 09.08.2024 For A.Y.2020-21. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant By Refusing To Condone The Delay Of 108 Days In Filing The Appeal Without Appreciating That The Said Delay Was Due To Reasonable Cause As Explained In The Application For Condonation Of Delay Filed Before Cit(A) & Therefore, The Said Delay Ought To Have Been Condoned In The Interest Of Justice & The Appeal Should Have Been Adjudicated On Merits. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Ought To Have Appreciated That The Deduction U/S 80P Was Allowable In Respect Of Interest Earned From Deposits Made By Cooperative Banks As Consistently Held By Honorable

Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

Mayur Balasaheb Shinde, Pune vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Pune

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

ITA 1504/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1504/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mayur Balasaheb Shinde, V The Income Tax Officer, 1, Anil Apartment, Baner S Ward-2(1), Pune. Residency, Baner Road, Near Sakal Nagar, Aunch, Ganeshkind, Pune – 411007. Pan: Drbps7371R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sarang Gudhate – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Dr Date Of Hearing 13/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/11/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 31.10.2023 For A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld Assessing Officer Is Erred In Considering The Cash Deposited Of Rs.10,46,000/- As Unexplained Money U/S 69A R.W.S 115Bbe. 2. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld Assessing Officer Is Erred In Treating Agricultural Income Of Rs.13,63,625/- As Income From Other Sources. 3. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Assessing Officer Is Erred In Making An Addition On Account Of Cash Deposited Whereas Same Is Already Considered In Net Profit & In Gross Total Income. This Addition Is Resulting As A Double Taxation. 4. The Appellant Craves The Permission To Add, Amend, Modify, Revise, Substitute, Delete Or Alter Any/All Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal If Deemed Necessary At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.” Submission Of Ld.Authorised Representative(Ld.Ar) : 2. Ld.Ar Submitted That There Was Delay In Filing Appeal Before The Itat. Ld.Ar Filed Copy Of Affidavit Of The Assessee Which Explains The Reasons For Delay.

Section 250Section 69A

Shri Devi Jugai Gramin Bigar Shet, Ratnagiri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ratnagiri

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

ITA 1492/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1492/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Devi Jugai Gramin V The Income Tax Officer, Bigar Shet, S Ratnagiri. 941, Kusumb, Devrukh, Ratnagiri – 415804. Pan: Aanas0063R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Dr Date Of Hearing 13/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/11/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 26.12.2023 For A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Cit(A), Nfac Erred In Confirming The Addition Made By The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Ratnagiri (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Ito’) Of Rs. 12,13,000/- Representing The Total Of Cash Deposits During Demonetization Period Not Accepting The Claim Of The Appellant Society That The Source Of The Cash Deposit Being Out Of Identified Sources Who Are Members Of The Society, No Addition Is Called For In Respect Of Such Cash Deposits.

Section 250Section 80P(2)(a)