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

Shpl Enterprises Private Limited, Varanasi vs. ACIT, R - 1, Varanasi

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

ITA 31/VNS/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi30 Jun 2026AY 2014-2015

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2014-15 Shpl Enterprises Private Limited, Vs Acit, C-27/273, C-13, Indian Press Range-1, Varanasi Colony Maldahiya, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh-221002 Pan: Aahcs6003K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Vipul Khandhar, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Sabayasachi Chakraborty, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.05.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.06.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 27.12.2023, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. The Learned Ito Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing The Order U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of It Act, 1961 Which Is Requested To Be Quashed. 2. The Learned Ito Erred In Making Addition Of Rs.18687945/- Being Sale Consideration Of Penny Stock U/S 68 Of It Act, 1961. 3. The Learned Ito Erred In Making Addition Of Rs.373759/-Being Commission As Unexplained Expenditure U/S 69C Of The It Act, 1961.” 2. The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed A Return Of Income On 11.11.2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rupees Nil & The Case Was Completed

For Appellant: Sh. Vipul Khandhar, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sabayasachi Chakraborty, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

Gaurav Tripathi, Gorakhpur vs. Dc/ACIT - 1, Gorakhpur

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

ITA 187/VNS/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi30 Jun 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 Gaurav Tripathi, Vs Dc/Acit-1, 296, Rapti Nagar Phase 4, Gorakhpur Chargawan, Gorakhpur, (U.P.) 273001 Pan: Affpt3378G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Sanchit Srivastava, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Sabayasachi Chakraborty, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.05.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.06.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 28.08.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Of The Assessment Year 2015-16 Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 25.03.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Order Of Ld. Cit Appeals Dated Was Not In Accordance Of Law & Facts & Was Not Justified In Making Addition Of Rs 11,05,466/- As Unexplained Investment U/S 69 Out Of Rs 64,21,943/-Which Was Made From Legal Sources. 2. That The Order Of Ld. Cit Appeals Was Not In Accordance Of Law & Facts & Was Not Justified In Calculating Tax On Income On Gross Salary Over Rs. 19,82,362/Instead Of Net Salary (After Deductions) On Rs. 14,29,810/-. 3. That The Penalty Proceeding Under Section 271 (1) (C). 271 (1) (B) Maybe Stayed, Till The Disposal Of This Appeal.

For Appellant: Sh. Sanchit Srivastava, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sabayasachi Chakraborty, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

Ashokkumar Chhaganbhai Mehta, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Rajkot

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

ITA 658/RJT/2026[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 658/Rjt/2026 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2022-23) Ashokkumar Chhaganbhai Mehta Income Tax Officer Ward - 1(1)(1) 305-A Convention Center Opp Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Rajkot Icici Bank Yagnik Road Rajkot Gujrat 360001 Gujrat 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Alvpm7081P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Digant Kiyada, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Gopi Nath Chubey, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2026 30/06/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : Order Per, Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23, 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 15.04.2026, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 144 Read With Section144B Of The Act, Dated 13.03.2024. Ita No.658/Rjt/2026 [ Ay 2022-23 ] Ashokkumar Chhaganbhai Mehta V. Ito

For Appellant: Shri Digant Kiyada, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Gopi Nath Chubey, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 144B

Kanzariya Kalidas Popatlal, Chotila vs. The ITO Ward 1, Surendranagar

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

ITA 193/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 193/Rjt/2026 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2013-14) Kalidas Popatbhai Kanjariya The Ipo, Ward 1, Surendranagar Gujrat 363001 Near Gurjar Prajapati Wad, Vs. Flvadi Thangadh Chotila Surendranagar Gujrat 36530 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Cfppk3840A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Gopi Nath Chubey, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25/06/2026 30/06/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : Order Per, Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14, 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 14.03.2023, 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 23.10.2018. Ita No.193/Rjt/2026 [ Ay 2013-14 ] Kalidas Popatbhai Kanjariya V. Ito

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Gopi Nath Chubey, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 148