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

Shahnawaz, Uttar Pradesh vs. ITO Ward-1(2)(5), Uttar Prdesh

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

ITA 9048/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Shahnawaz, Vs Ito 590, Uncha Saddique Nagar, Ward-1(2)(5) Lisadi Gate, Meerut, Uttar Meerut Pradesh Pan-Badps5592M Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri V. Rajakumar, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora Date Of Hearing 13.05.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 15.03.2025 Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2013- 14/10253818 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 11.05.2023 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. It Is Observed That The Appeal Was Filed Delayed By 213 Days. Before Us, An Application For Condonation Of Delay Was Filed Wherein, It Is Stated That Assessee Has Sent The Appellate Order For The Preparation Of The Appeal To The Office Of Its Counsel Shri Vinod Kumar Goel, Who Was Handling The Appeals Matters. Later When The Assessee Enquired About The Status Of The Appeal, It Was Come To His Notice That Due To Illness, Shri Goel Had Expired & The Appeal Was Not Field. Therefore, The Immediately Rushed & Engaged A New Counsel For The Preparation & Filing The Appeal. Due To This Reason The Appeal Was Filed Delayed By 213 Days. It Is Thus Submitted That The Delay Was Neither Intentional Nor Willful & Occurred Due To Circumstances Beyond The Control Of The Assessee & Has Bonafide Reason Thus It Is Requested To Condone The Delay & Decide The Appeal On Merits.

Section 147Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sunanda Polymers, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5819/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalacit, Sunanda Polymers 43/4, 1St Floor, New Delhi Vs. East Patel Nagar, New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca Sh. Ankur Agarwal, Ca Department By Shri. Tarun Sarda, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 08/07/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17/07/2026 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Ld. Cit(A)] Dated 24.06.2025 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” In Short) Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S.144(B) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Briefly Stated The Facts Are That The Assessment Order Was Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 143 Of The Act Dated 18.05.2023 Wherein The Total Addition Of Rs. 3,05,67,087/- Was Made To The Total Income Of Rs. 77,57,074/- Vide Order Dated 13.12.2019 And, Accordingly, Total Income Of The Assessee Was Recomputed At Rs.3,83,24,161/-. Acit Vs. Sunanda Polymers 3. Against The Said Order, Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Wherein The Assessee Has Challenged The Reopening Of The Assessment & Further Challenged The Additions So Made On Merits. The Ld. Cit(A) In Terms Of The Order Dated 24.06.2025 Has Deleted The Additions As Well As Holding The Reopening Of The Assessment U/S 147 Is Not Correct As It Was Initiated On Wrong Presumption & Without Application Of Mind.

Section 147Section 148ASection 250Section 37