Section 253(1) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.362

Section 253(1) falls under section 253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 362 (Appeals to Appellate Tribunal) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 362 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 253(1) is Vishin Meghani v. DCIT & Anr (398 ITR 250), cited in 291 of the 182 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 253(1)

Vishin Meghani v. DCIT & Anr
398 ITR 250 · 2017 · High Court
291
citing judgments

This case is cited as an authority supporting the condonation of delay in filing income tax appeals, particularly when an assessee presents a request for such condonation.

Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. v. Ms Katiji and Others
167 ITR 5 · 1987 · Supreme Court
164
citing judgments

The principle of 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay in filing appeals requires a liberal interpretation to ensure substantial justice, but delay will not be condoned if sufficient cause is not satisfactorily explained by the appellant.

Raja Kishor Raghuramy Reddy v. ACIT
112 Taxmann.com 134 · 2019 · Supreme Court
66
citing judgments

The Supreme Court considered the delay in filing an appeal and the appellant's justification for it. The court noted that the appellant's registered address was used for communication and that the postal authorities returned mail. The court referenced its earlier decision in 'Meda Raja Kishor Raghuramy Reddy Vs ACIT' when considering the appellant's case.

Aggarwal v. NFAC
127 Taxmann.com 637 · High Court
34
citing judgments

Denying a personal hearing when specifically requested, especially after a search and during a pandemic, violates the principles of natural justice. The assessment and appellate proceedings themselves were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Hire Purchase (P.) Ltd. v. NFAC
128 Taxmann.com 190 · High Court
34
citing judgments

Failure to grant a personal hearing to an assessee when income is likely to be varied based on submitted evidence violates the principles of natural justice and renders the assessment order invalid.

Panaji Page 7 of 12 BS Bhate & Others v. DCIT AY
460 ITR 508 · High Court
34
citing judgments

Denial of personal hearing by the tax authorities violates the principle of natural justice and can lead to the quashing of an assessment order, especially when the law explicitly provides for such a hearing.

Chandrakant Dharia v. ITO
469 ITR 262 · Reported
34
citing judgments

An adverse assessment order cannot be passed without granting an opportunity of personal hearing to the taxpayer. Where income is to be varied based on evidence, a personal hearing is mandatory.

Bhattacharjee v. Managing
9 SCR 782 · Supreme Court
22
citing judgments

The condonation of delay in filing an appeal requires a liberal approach, but this approach must be balanced with reasonableness, and the applicant's conduct, including negligence or malafide intentions, cannot be ignored. Fanciful or concocted explanations for the delay will not be countenanced.

Pingle Industries v. CIT
40 ITR 67 · 1960 · Supreme Court
11
citing judgments

Payments made for acquiring a long-term right to extract minerals or stones, even if structured as rent or royalty, constitute capital expenditure as they result in acquiring an asset of enduring benefit, and are therefore not allowable as revenue deduction.

Industries Ltd. v. CIT
106 Taxmann 337 · 1999 · Supreme Court
8
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 253(1)

Mohali Education Society, Mohali vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Chandigarh

Appeal stand dismissed as being not maintainable

ITA 511/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.511/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) M/S Mohali Education Society Cit (Exemptions) बनाम/ Vs. Opp. H.No.652, Phase-X Chandigarh Mohali – 160062 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatm-6973-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Om Datt Sharma (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Bharat Bhushan Garg (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-11-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-11-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aggrieved By Rejection Of An Application (Seeking Condonation Of Delay In Filing Form 10B) As Filed By The Assessee U/S 119(2)(B) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21 Vide Impugned Order Dated 21-03-2025 As Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh, The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. The Ld. Cit-Dr, At The Outset, Pleaded That This Order Is Not An Appealable Order Before Tribunal In Terms

For Appellant: Shri Om Datt Sharma (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Bhushan Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 119(2)(b)Section 253

M/S Srithik Ispat Private Limited, Sanguem vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2(1), Panaji

The appeal of the assessee is DISMISSED as withdrawn

ITA 278/PAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji27 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. Ita No. 278/Pan/2019 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S Srithik Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. 03, Sangam Industrial Estate, Sanguem, Goa-403704. Pan : Aaics1765P . . . . . . . Appellant बिधम / V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-2(1), Panaji. . . . . . . . Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee By : None For The Assessee Revenue By : Mr Madesha [‘Ld. Dr’] सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 27/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 27/10/2025 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal Of The Assessee Is Instituted U/S 253(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ In Short] Challenging The Order Dt. 30/08/2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Appeals, Panaji-1, Goa [‘Ld. Cit(A)’ In Short] U/S 250 Of The Act Which In Turn Arisen From The Order Of Assessment Dt. 29/12/2017 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Panaji [‘Ld. Ao’ In Short] Anent To Assessment Year 2015-16 [‘Ay’ In Short]

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr Madesha [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(1)Section 254
Section 253(1) Income Tax Act (2025: s.362) — Case Laws | BharatTax