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

Income Tax Officer, Faridabad vs. Manav Sanskar Shiksha Sanstha, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 3190/DEL/2025[2020]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jun 2026

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2020-21] Ito Vs Manav Sanskar Shiksha Aaykar Bhawan, Sanstha, 3 & 4, Ashoka Enclave, Faridabad Part-1, Sector-4, Faridabad, Haryana-121001 Haryana-201004 Pan-Aacam0915H Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri Ajay Kumar Agarwal, Ca Date Of Hearing 24.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.06.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 21.03.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2019-20/10434387 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Intimation Order Dated 24.12.2021 Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Registered Society, Doing Charitable Activity Of Imparting Education & Registered U/S 12Aa Of The Act In Terms Of Approval Granted By Ld. Cit(A), Faridabad Dt 15.04.2013 & Subsequently, Renewed By Pcit Vide Order Dated 08.07.2024. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Appeal Was Filed In Form Itr 7 On 27.12.2020 Loss Of 13,76,228/- Being Excess Of Expenditure Over Income & Has Not Exemption U/S 12 Of The Act. The Cpc In Terms Of The Order U/S 143(1) Of The Act Denied The Exemption As The Assessee Has Not Filed Form 10B Alongwith The Return Of Income Filed & Create A Demand On Gross Receipts. Thereafter, The Assessee A Rectification Application However, As The Assessee Has Not Filed Form 10B Before The Filing Of Return Of Income & Power Of Condonation Of Delay In From 10B As Per Section 119(2)(B) Of The Act Is With The Concerned Pcit/Cit/Dit Therefore, The Cpc Has Rejected The Application Of The Assessee Filed U/S 154 Of The Act.

Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

Rakesh Ratanlal Jaiswal, Yavatmal vs. ITO Ward - 1, Yavatmal

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 453/NAG/2026[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Jun 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Khettra Mohan Royrakesh Ratanlal Jaiswal, Ito, Ward-1, Yavatmal Choti Gujari, Yavatmal Vs H.O., Yavatmal-445 001 Pan : Aeypj 5978 C Assessee Revenue Assessee By : Shri Shubham Jain, Ca & Shri Ameenuddin Khan, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.06.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.06.2026 O R D E R Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (For Short, “Cit(A)”), Dated 20/02/2026 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”) Which Is Emanating From The Penalty Order Dated 11.07.2024 Passed U/S. 272A(1)(D) Of The Act, For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Learned Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That Assessee Does Not Wish To Pursue The Present Appeal And, Therefore, Seeks Permission To Withdraw The Same. The Ld.Dr Has No Objection For Withdrawal Of The Appeal. 3. We Have Considered The Submissions Of Both Sides. Since The Assessee Has Expressed His Intention To Withdraw The Appeal & The Revenue Has Not Raised Any Objection Thereto, The Request Of The Assessee Is Accepted. Accordingly, Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Treated As Withdrawn & Is Dismissed As Such. 4. In The Result, Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Dismissed As Withdrawn. Order Pronounced In Open Court On 16.06.2026

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Jain, CA &For Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)