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. Utkal Builders Ltd., Bhubaneshwar vs. DCIT, Circle - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed not only on legal ground of violation of principles of natural justice but also on merits

ITA 605/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. Nos.604&605/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S Utkal Builders Ltd…....…….…....…………….......…....………....Appellant Plot No.777, Virayatan Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneshwar, Khorda, Orissa – 751007. [Pan: Aaacu5502C] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata……............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. M. Surana, Ar & Sunil Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 18, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 12, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For Different Assessment Years Against The Separate Orders Dated 15.02.2024 & 14.02.2024 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’). Since Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Appeals, Therefore, Both The Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. Ita No.604/Kol/2024 Is Taken As Lead Case For Narration Of Facts. 2. Ita No.604/Kol/2024 - The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 131Section 250Section 68

M/S. Utkal Builders Ltd., Bhubaneshwar vs. DCIT, Circle - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed not only on legal ground of violation of principles of natural justice but also on merits

ITA 604/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. Nos.604&605/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S Utkal Builders Ltd…....…….…....…………….......…....………....Appellant Plot No.777, Virayatan Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneshwar, Khorda, Orissa – 751007. [Pan: Aaacu5502C] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata……............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. M. Surana, Ar & Sunil Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 18, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 12, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For Different Assessment Years Against The Separate Orders Dated 15.02.2024 & 14.02.2024 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’). Since Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Appeals, Therefore, Both The Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. Ita No.604/Kol/2024 Is Taken As Lead Case For Narration Of Facts. 2. Ita No.604/Kol/2024 - The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 131Section 250Section 68

Kishorepur Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Limited, Nadia vs. I.T.O., Ward - 41(3), Nadia

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

ITA 1323/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1323/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kishorepur Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Limited...Appellant At & P.O Kishorepur, P.S. Karimpur, District Nadia, Pin: 742465, W.B. [Pan: Aacak8616M] Vs. Ito, Ward-41(3), Nadia……..….……….…..............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri P. K. Ray, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 11, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 12, 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 01.05.2024 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 Has Invited Our Attention To The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) To Submit That The Same Is An Ex Parte Order. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Assessee Was Never Informed By His Tax Expert About The Issuance Of Notices Of Hearing. That No Notices Were Ever Served Upon The Assessee By Way Of Physical Mode. That The Non-Appearance Of The Assessee Before The Cit(A) Was Not Wilful Or Intentional, Rather, Because Of The Above Circumstance. The Ld. Counsel, Therefore, Has Submitted That The

Section 250