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

R1641 Melakalkandarkottai, Trichy vs. Income Tax Officer, Trichy

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 98/CHNY/2026[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jun 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Honourable Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 98/Chny/2026 ननिाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2019-20 R1641 Melakalkandarkottai V. The Income Tax Officer, No.3, Nagammai Street, Trichy. Melakalkandarkottai, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620 011. [Pan: Aabar2140Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Sa No. 51/Chny/2026 (Ita No. 98/Chny/2026) ननिाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2019-20 R1641 Melakalkandarkottai V. The Income Tax Officer, No.3, Nagammai Street, Trichy. Melakalkandarkottai, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620 011. [Pan: Aabar2140Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. M. Karunananthan, Advocate, Ld. Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr. Guru Bashyam, Cit, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2026

For Appellant: Mr. M. Karunananthan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Guru Bashyam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 250(4)Section 69ASection 80ASection 80P

The Thuraiyur Co-Operative Rural Credit Society Ltd, Trichy vs. Incometax Officer, Ward 2(1) Trichy/, Trichy

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 97/CHNY/2026[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jun 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Honourable Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 97/Chny/2026 ननिाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2016-17 The Thuraiyur Cooperative Rural Credit V. The Income Tax Officer, Society Limited, Ward-2(1), No.21, West Theppakulam Street, Trichy. Thuraiyur, H.O, Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu-621 010. [Pan: Aadat9372Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Sa No. 54/Chny/2026 (Ita No. 97/Chny/2026) ननिाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2016-17 The Thuraiyur Cooperative Rural Credit V. The Income Tax Officer, Society Limited, Ward-2(1), No.21, West Theppakulam Street, Trichy. Thuraiyur, H.O, Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu-621 010. [Pan: Aadat9372Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. M. Karunananthan, Advocate, Ld. Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr. Guru Bashyam, Cit, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2026

For Appellant: Mr. M. Karunananthan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Guru Bashyam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

Shri Akshay Manoj Pagdhare, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-42(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1013/MUM/2026[1013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2026

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeakshay Manoj Pagdhare Vs Ito Ward 42(1)(1), Mumbai 401, Anant B Bhakti Complex, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra East, Kandarpada, Link Road, Mumbai-400051 Dahisar (West) Mumbai- 400068 Pan: Alfpp9823Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Mukesh Thakwani (Sr.Dr) Date Of Hearing : 22/06/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/06/2026 O R D E R Per:Anikesh Banerjee (Jm): The Instant Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi [For Brevity The “Ld. Cit(A)”], Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (For Brevity ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2020-21, Date Of Order 04.04.2025. The Impugned Order Emanated From The Order Of The Assessment Unit Income Tax Department (For Brevity The ‘Ld. Ao’) Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Date Of Order 21.09.2022. 2 Shri Akshay Manoj Pagdhare 2. When The Appeals Were Called For Hearing, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. The Bench Had Granted Several Opportunities & Adjourned The Matter On Multiple Occasions To Enable The Assessee To Prosecute The Appeal. However, Despite Such Opportunities, No One Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Accordingly, After Considering The Material Available On Record, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal Ex Parte Qua The Assessee After Hearing The Submissions Of The Ld. Dr.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Thakwani (Sr.DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(x)