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

Suyash Institute of Medical Science Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. DCIT-1(1), Raipur(Erstwhile ACIT-2(1), Raipur)

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

ITA 208/RPR/2026[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Jun 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 208/Rpr/2026 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2012-13) Suyash Institute Of Medical Science Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax- Pvt. Ltd., Suyash Hospital, 1(1), Raipur, (Erstwhile Asst. Ward 12, Kota Road, Gudhiyari, Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur-492001, C.G. Aaykar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur-1, Pan: Aalcs5760K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri R. B. Doshi, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/04/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 04/06/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2012-13 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.01.2026 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’).

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 80ISection 91(3)

Income Tax Officer. 6(2) Lucknow, Lucknow vs. Moti Lal and Sons, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 117/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow04 Jun 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, 6(2), Vs Moti Lal & Sons, 73, Subhashmarg, Lucknow Lucknow-226003, U.P. Pan: Aacfm9194M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.04.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 4.06.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Department Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit, Nfac Wherein The Ld. Cit(A), Vide His Order Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 16.01.2024, Has Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144B For The A.Y. 2017-18 On 26.03.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Whether The Cit(A), Nfac Has Erred In Law While Allowing Relief To The Assessee Without Calling For Remand Report U/S 250(4) & Thus Admitting The Additional Evidences Filed By The Assessee In Contravention To The Conditions Laid Down In Rule 46A Of The I.T. Rules, Thereby Denied The Examination Of The Same By The Assessing Officer Under Rule 46A(3) Of I.T. Rules. 2. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Whether The Cit(A), Nfac Took The Additional/Fresh Evidences Dehors To Rule 46A Of The I.T. Rules. Reliance Is Placed On Income Tax Reference No. 96 Of 1987 In The Case Of Haji Lal Mohd Biri Vs. Cit(Central), Kanpur, Allahabad High Court Dated 20.01.2005 & Itat

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(4)Section 69A