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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
