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

Primco Private Limited, Patna vs. Circle 1, Patna

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

ITA 518/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jun 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18 Primco Private Limited Vs. Circle-1, Patna 206-B, Ashiana Plaza, Budh Bihar-800001 Marg, Patna, Bihar-800001 [Pan: Aaacp4211B] Appellant Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Ravi Kant, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.06.2026 O R D E R Per Yogesh Kumar U.S.: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [“The Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short], Dated 19.09.2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”, For Short) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, An Assessment Order Came To Be Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 23.10.2019 By Making Certain Additions. Aggrieved By The Assessment Order Dated 23.10.2019, Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A). The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order Dated 19.09.2025, Dismissed The Appeal Filed By The Assessee. Primco Private Limited; A.Y: 2017-18 As Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dated 19.09.2025, Assessee Filed The Present Appeal. 3. None Appeared For The Assessee. Considering The Issue Involved In The Present Appeal, We Deem It Fit To Decide The Appeal On Hearing The Ld. Dr & Perused The Material Available On Record.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250

Kusum Maheshwari, India vs. Proprietor, India

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

ITA 58/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Jun 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Kusum Maheshwari Vs Income Tax Officer, (Individual), 57, Shri Ram Road, Range-5(1), Lucknow Aminabad, Lucknow, U.P. Pan: Amepm4193N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. R.P. Tiwari, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.05.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.06.2026 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) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 15.11.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ao For The A.Y. 2016, Passed On 21.03.2022 Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order U/S 250 Having Din & Order По. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1070395040(1) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition Made By The Ao To The Tune Of Rs. 53,34,000/- Made Under Section 56(2)(Vii)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Appreciating The Factual Explanations & Documentary Evidence Submitted Before The Appellate Proceedings. 3. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Treating The Dvo Report As Conclusive Evidence, Whereas It Is Well Settled By Various Fiduciary Pronouncement That Such Reports Are Merely Advisory In Nature & Cannot Override Actual Purchase Consideration.

For Appellant: Sh. R.P. Tiwari, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)