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

Shabbir Bengali, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 37(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

ITA 1503/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Sept 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1503/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shabbir Bengali…………..…….…....…………….......…....………....Appellant C/O Sri Jitendra Kaushik, Advocate, 19D, Muktaram Babu Street, Kolkata – 700007. [Pan: Aijpb4101G] Vs. Ito, Ward-37(1), Kolkata.......................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 24, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 04.07.2024 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 Sole Issue Raised In This Appeal Is Relating To The Addition Made By The Lower Authorities U/S 50C Of The Act On Account Of Difference Between Collector Rate As Compared To Sale Consideration Mentioned In The Sale Deeds In Respect Of Property Sold By The Assessee Along With Others, Wherein, The Assessee Had Share Of 11.277%. 3. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Disputed The Purchase Value/Market Value Of The Property As On 01.04.1981

Section 250Section 50C

Rockwell Tradevin Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 13(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 1501/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Sept 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1501/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Rockwell Tradevin Pvt. Ltd...…….…....…………….......…....………....Appellant 187, Rabindra Sarini, 2Nd Floor, Room No.73, Kolkata – 700007. [Pan: Aafcr1641C] Vs. Ito, Ward-13(3), Kolkata.......................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. S. Gupta, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 24, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 14.06.2024 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 Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeals: “Ground 1: That The Ld. Ao Erred In Law As Well As In Facts In Passing The Order Appealed Against In As Much As In View Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case No Such Order Was At All Liable To Be Passed & The Lad. Cita) Erred In Confirming The Same. Ground 2: That The Ld. Ao Erred In Law As Well As In Facts In Making An Addition Of Rs.1,99,00,000/- U/S. 68 In Respect Of Share Capital Raised During The Year By Issuing 39,800 Equity Shares @ Of Rs.500/, Including Share Premium Of Rs.490/- Per Share, In As Much As In View Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case No Such Addition Was At All Called For & The Ld. Cita) Erred In Confirming The Same.

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Samrat Kumar Ghosh, Darjeeling vs. I.T.O., Ward - 2(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 1495/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Sept 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1495/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Samrat Kumar Ghosh……..…….…....…………….......…....………....Appellant Tumbe Jote, Matigara, Rabin Sen Colony, Darjeeling, W.B – 734010. [Pan: Aqepg2359J] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(3), Siliguri.......................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 24, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.03.2023 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’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Lower Authorities In Making Addition Of Rs.55,53,171/- On Account Of Unexplained Cash Credits. 3. The Assessing Officer Found That There Were Cash Credits In The Bank Account Of The Assessee. However, The Assessee Could Not Give Satisfactory Explanation Regarding The Source Of The Said Cash Credits. Even The Assessee Did Not Reply To The Various Notices Issued By The Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer, Therefore, Made The Impugned

Section 144Section 250