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

Rajbanshi Lok Kalyan Samiti, Gorakhpur vs. AO, NFAC

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

ITA 38/LKW/2026[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Jun 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2022-23 Rajbanshi Lok Kalyan Samiti, Divine Vs Ld. Assessing Officer, Public School, Near 26 Pac Camp, Nfac Bichhiya Sadar, Gorakhpur, 273001 Pan: Aabar1623G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Girjesh Tripathi, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.04.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.06.2026 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), Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 24.11.2025, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer For The Assessment Year 2022-23 Under Section 143(3) On 22.03.2024. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. The Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Stating That The Appellant "Does Not Have 12A Registration". This Finding Is Perverse, Factually Incorrect, Unsustainable In Law & Contrary To The Record, As The Appellant Is Duly Registered U/S 12A & Enjoys Statutory Exemption Under Sections 11-12. 2. The Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,85,72,381/- Made U/S 143(3), By Treating Loan Repayment As Income, Ignoring That:  Loan Is A Capital Receipt.  Repayment Of Loan Is Application Of Income U/S 11(1)(A).  There Is No Provision In The Act Which Treats A Genuine Loan Repayment As "Income"

For Appellant: Sh. Girjesh Tripathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 2(24)Section 250Section 250(6)

Khalsa Model Senior Secondary School, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(4), Exemption, Kolkata

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

ITA 483/KOL/2026[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jun 2026AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2023-24 Khalsa Model Senior Secondary School....………..............................……….……Appellant 135, B T Road, Kol700108. [Pan: Aaaak3070F] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), Exemption, Kolkata…..….……………………...……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shrip. K. Das, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing :June 11, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order :June 25Th,2026 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 09.12.2025Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) For The A.Y 2023-24. 2. At The Outset, We Find That The Ld. Cit(A) Dismissed The Appeal In Limine Without Deciding The Issues On Merits By Not Condoning The Delay Of 27 Days In Filing The Appeal. We Find That In Form 35, The Assessee Submitted The Reasons For The Delay Before The Ld. Cit(A) But The Ld. Cit(A) Did Not Consider & Condone The Delay & Decided The Issue On Merits Which Is In Violation Of Section 250(6) Of The Act. The Ld. Ar Has Submitted That The Assessee Has Filed All The Documents Before The Assessing Officer However The Assessing Officer Did Not Consider The Same & Framed The Assessment U/S 144/144B Of The Act. 3. Considering The Facts Of The Case We Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) & In The Interest Of Justice, Restore The Issues In The Appeal To The File Of The Assessing Officer With A Direction To Re-Adjudicate The Issues Afresh On Merits After Affording Adequate Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Assessee. The Assessing Officer Is Also Directed To Pass A Speaking Order In Accordance With Law.

Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)