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

Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Samiti Limited, Kaladera vs. ITO 7(1), Baba Siddhinath Bawan, Jaipur

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

ITA 1591/JPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 May 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargdugdh Utpadak Sahakari Vs. Ito 7(1), Samiti Limited, Jaipur Kaladera "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No:Aaaad8858J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mrs. Suhani Meharwal, Ca (Thr. V.C.) Respondent By : Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Jcit Date Of Hearing 17.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.05.2026 O R D E R The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By Assessee Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 25.08.2025, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). 2. The Sole Issue Involved In This Appeal Is Relating To The Disallowance Of Rs.9,00,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer On The Ground That The Assessee Could Not Furnish The Source Of The Said Amount Expended For Purchase Of A Vehicle. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Noted That The P A G E | 2 Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Samiti Limited Assessee Had Incurred A Total Expenditure Of Rs.21,90,000/- For Purchase Of Vehicle. The Assessee Explained That Rs.12,90,000/- Was Paid By Cheque From His Bank Account & The Remaining Amount Of Rs.9,00,000/- Was Got Financed From Sundaram Finance Limited. The Ao Disallowed The Expenditure To The Extent Of Rs.9,00,000/- Observing That The Assessee Had Not Furnished The Relevant Documents To Prove That The Said Amount Was Got Financed From Sundaram Finance Limited.

For Appellant: Mrs. Suhani Meharwal, CA (thr. V.C.)For Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 250