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

The Adajan Vibhag Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Mandli Limited, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 142/SRT/2026[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Aug 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.142/Srt/2026 [ "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 ] The Adajan Vibhag Vividh Assistant Director Of Income Tax, Karyakari Sahakari Mandli Limited, Cpc, Bangaluru Vs. At Adajan Gam, Nr Lnb Daliya Jurisdictional Ao School, Tal-Choryasi, Income Tax Office,Ward-1(3)(1), Surat, Gujarat-395009 Anavil Business Centre Building, Adajan, Surat, Gujarat-395009 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaeat4013B (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P M Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By : Shri Ajay Uke, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/05/2026 10/08/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : :: Order :: Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-22, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 31.10.2025 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [In Short ‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (In Short ‘Ao’) U/S. 154 Of The Act. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Barred By Limitation By 37 Days. The Assessee Moved A Petition Requesting The Bench To Condone The Delay. I Note That The Reasons Given In The Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Were Convincing & These Reasons Would Constitute Reasonable & Sufficient Cause For The Delay In

For Appellant: Shri P M Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

Dulabhai Valjibhai Pandav, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2)(1), Surat

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

ITA 1346/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Aug 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1346/Srt/2025 [ िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 ] Dulabhai Valjibhai Pandav, Income-Tax Officer, 245, Nandvan Soc. Nr. Bapa Ito Ward 3(2)(1), Vs. Sitaram Chowk, Katargam, Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat Gujarat-395004 Surat, Gujrat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bpopp8046M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Chaitali Shah, Ca Respondent By : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21/05/2026 10/08/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : :: Order :: Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Is Directed Against The Order Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nac) Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short ‘Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)’], Dated 05.08.2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Act, Dated 22.10.2019. 2. Learned Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That Appeal Filed By The Assessee Before This Tribunal Is Barred By Limitation By 401 Days. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Explained The Reasons In Filing The Appeal Before This Tribunal & Stated

For Appellant: Shri Chaitali Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 250