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

Nurmamadbhai Amibhai Badi, Wankaner vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Morbi

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

ITA 541/RJT/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Jul 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 541/Rjt/2026 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Nurmamadbhai Amibhai Badi The Income-Tax Officer, Rdc Bank Apmc Marketing Yard Vs. Income Tax Office, Aayakar Branch, Chandrapur Ta: Wakaner Vibhag, J.K. Chamber, National Dist: Morbi Wakaner Gujrat - Highway-8-A, At-Lalpur- 363621 Morbi Gujrat - 363621 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ajjpb4694B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14/05/2026 03/07/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2017- 18, 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 21.01.2026, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 29.12.2019. 2. When The Matter Was Called For Hearing, The Learned Counsel For The Assessee At The Outset Submitted That The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Belatedly By 14 Days Before The Tribunal. The Learned Counsel Adverted My Attention To The Affidavit Filed In This Regard Citing Reasons For Condonation Of Delay Or Urged For A Benign View & Nurmamadbhai Amibhai Badi Sought Condonation Of Delay Of 14 Days In Filling The Appeal Before The Tribunal. On The Other Hand, Ld. Dr For The Revenue Opposed The Prayer Of Assessee For Condonation Of Delay. A Perusal Of The Affidavit Gives Me An Impression Of Existence Of Mitigating Circumstances To Enable Me To Exercise My Discretion In Favour Of The Assessee. Accordingly, The Delay Is Condoned.

For Appellant: Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250

Vinodray Nagjibhai Thacker, Bhuj vs. ITO, Ward-4, Gdham(Bhuj-2)/, Bhuj

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 195/RJT/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Jul 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 194 & 195/Rjt/2026 [ िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 & 2017-18 ] Vinodray Nagjibhai Thacker, बनाम/ Income Tax Officer, Ward - 4, Vs. 12 Zulelal Society, Near Court Gandhidham (Bhuj-2), Bhuj, Bldg, Bhuj, Gujarat-370001 Gujarat-370001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abhpt2539H (Assessee) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar राज" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/04/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/07/2026 : आदेश /Order : Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years (Ay) 2016-17 & 2017-18, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 15.03.2024 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/ Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [In Short ‘Ld.Cit(A)’] Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer (In Short ‘Ao’) U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act Dated 28.03.2022 & 29.03.2022, Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148ASection 151Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

Vinodray Nagjibhai Thacker, Bhuj vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 4, Gandhidham (Bhuj - 2), Bhuj

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 194/RJT/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Jul 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 194 & 195/Rjt/2026 [ िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 & 2017-18 ] Vinodray Nagjibhai Thacker, बनाम/ Income Tax Officer, Ward - 4, Vs. 12 Zulelal Society, Near Court Gandhidham (Bhuj-2), Bhuj, Bldg, Bhuj, Gujarat-370001 Gujarat-370001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abhpt2539H (Assessee) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar राज" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/04/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/07/2026 : आदेश /Order : Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years (Ay) 2016-17 & 2017-18, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 15.03.2024 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/ Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [In Short ‘Ld.Cit(A)’] Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer (In Short ‘Ao’) U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act Dated 28.03.2022 & 29.03.2022, Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148ASection 151Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

Brijeshbhai Dineshbhai Shingala, Vansda, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer ITO Ward 1(2)(1), Rajkot

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, for statistical purposes

ITA 591/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Jul 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 591/Rjt/2025 [ िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 ] Brijeshbhai Dineshbhai Income Tax Officer Ito Ward Shingala, Vadasada, 1(2)(1), Rajkot, Vs. Vadasada Rajkot, Aayakar Bhawan, Racecourse Ring Gujarat-364485 (India) Road, Rajkot, Gujarat, 360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Fnjps2098B (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Kamlesh Pandya, Ld. Ar राज" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Gopi Nath Chaubey, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/04/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/07/2026 आदेश /Order Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 28.07.2025 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. 143(3) Of The Act Dated 17.12.2019. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: 1. Learned Cit(A) Erred In Making Order By Repeating Conclusion Of Ito As Per Assessment Order, Without Considering Facts, Circumstances Of Our Case & Submission Made By Us During Appeal Proceedings Even Though Source Of Cash Deposit Already Explained, Therefore Section 68 Not Applicable In Our Case.

For Appellant: Shri Kamlesh Pandya, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Gopi Nath Chaubey, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Chandrashekhar Singh L/H of Late Kanchan Devi, Patna vs. ITO Ward-4(1), Patna

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 32/PAT/2026[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna03 Jul 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Yogesh Kuamr U.S.Assessment Year: 2015-16 Chandrashekhar Singh L/H Of Vs. Ito, Ward-4(1), Patna Late Kanchan Devi Modldiyar Tola, Mokama Bihar-803302 [Pan: Awdpd2461P] Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, Ar Respondent By : Shri Ravi Kant Chowdhary, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.07.2026 O R D E R Per Yogesh Kumar U.S.: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi [“The Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short], Dated 06.11.2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”, For Short) For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, An Assessment Order Came To Be Passed Against The Late Kanchan Devi U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act On 12.03.2024 By Making Certain Additions. Aggrieved By The Assessment Order Dated 12.03.2024, Assessee Filed An Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A). The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order Dated 06.11.2025, Dismissed Chandrashekhar Singh L/H Of Late Kanchan Devi; A.Y: 2015-16 The Appeal Of The Assessee. As Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dated 06.11.2025, Legal Heir Of The Assessee Filed The Present Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Chowdhary, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250