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

Elsamex Maintenance Services Limited, Prahladnagar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Gandhinagar

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 883/AHD/2026[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.883/Ahd/2026 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Elsamex Maintenance Services Ltd., Dcit 1207-1210, Shapath V, Beside Hotel बनाम/ Circle Gandhinagar, V/S. Crown Plaza, Prahladnagar, S.G. Gandhinagar Highway, Ahmedabad, Gujarat-380015 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aadce5042Q (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bhupal Rapelli, Ar Revenue By : Shri Arvind Kumar Namdeo, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/07/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (In Short “Nfac”), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Dated 30/01/2026 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Bhupal Rapelli, ARFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar Namdeo, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)

Hardik Rajendrakumar Maniyar, Kadi vs. The ITO, Ward-5, Mehsana

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 781/AHD/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.781/Ahd/2026 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Hardik Rajendrakumar Maniyar, Ito A-17, Sarshwati Society, Kadi, बनाम/ Ward-5, V/S. Gujarat-382715 Mehsana "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Cdepm8447C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Yogesh Kanheria, Ar Revenue By : Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/07/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2026 आदेश/O R D E R The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Gurugram [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Dated 15/01/2026 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017- 18. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) Is An Ex-Parte Order Against The Assessee. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Assessee Has A Fair Case On Merits. That The Assessing Officer (In Short “The Ao”) Added Up All The Credits & Withdrawals In The Bank Account Of The Assessee. The Ld. Counsel Has Submitted That The Assessee May Be Given An Opportunity To Present His Case Before The Cit(A). Hardik Rajendrakumar Maniyar Vs. Ito Asst.Year 2017-18 2 3. Considering The Facts Of The Case, In My View, The Assessee Should Be Given An Opportunity To Present His Case Before The Ld. Cit(A). Accordingly, The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) Is Set-Aside. The Matter Is Restored To The File Of The Cit(A) For Decision Afresh. It Is Directed That The Assessee Will Be Vigilant & Take Care Of The Notices Issued By The Cit(A) & Promptly Represent His Matter Before The Cit(A) As & When Called For.

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Kanheria, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr. DR
Section 250

Tofeeq Taherbhai Ginwala, Vadodara vs. ITO, Ward 1, Godhra

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 777/AHD/2026[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.777/Ahd/2026 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2022-23 Tofeeq Taherbhai Ginwala, Ito Ff-101, Aman Residency, बनाम/ Ward-1, V/S. Wadi S.N. Road, Kamatipura, Godhra Vadodara, Gujarat-390017 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aocpg5520M (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anuj Tiwari, Ar Revenue By : Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/07/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2026 आदेश/O R D E R The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (In Short “Nfac”), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Dated 12/02/2026 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23. 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Cit(A) In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer (In Short “The Ao”) In Rejecting The Books Of Account Of The Assessee & Thereby Estimating The Net Profit @ 8% Of The Turn Over Resulting Into The Addition Of Rs. 16,31,698/-.

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 44A