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

Md Abdul Rafik, Tezpur vs. DCIT/ACIT Cir-1, Guwahati

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

ITA 99/GTY/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati18 May 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18 Md Abdul Rafik…………………………………………………..…..Appellant M/S Papu Hardware Napam Tezpur, Sonitpur Assam-784001 [Pan: Agupr0228B] Vs. Dcit/ Acit Central Circle-2, Guwahati…………..……...…..…..Respondent Assam-781005 Appearances By: Shri Shekhar Agarwal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 14, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 18, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.02.2025 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Ld. Cit(A)] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Preferred The Appeal Before The Tribunal With A Delay Of 277 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Reasons Stated Therein, We Are Satisfied That There Was A Reasonable Cause Which Prevented The Assessee From Filing The Appeal Within The Prescribed Time. Accordingly, The Delay Of 277 Days Is Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69ASection 69C

Nabanita Medhi, Goalpara vs. ITO, Ward Goalpara, Goalpara

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 163/GTY/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati18 May 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18 Nabanita Medhi…………………………………………………..…..Appellant Kalitapara, Goalpara Town Assam-783101 [Pan: Bkdpm6847B] Vs. Ito, Ward, Goalpara…………..……...……………………………..Respondent Assam-783101 Appearances By: Shri Nitin Sharma, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 14, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 18, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.01.2026 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Ld. Cit(A)] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Did Not File A Return Of Income U/S 139 Of The Act For The Assessment Year 2017-18. Information Was Received Through The Compliance Management Strategy (Cms) Of Cbdt By The Assessing Officer Indicating That There Were Substantial Financial Transactions In The Case Of The Assessee. The Information Revealed Total Credits, Including Cash Deposits In The Current Account Maintained With Assam Gramin Vikash Bank, Goalpara, Amounting To Rs.2,52,35,581/- & Tds U/S 194C From M/S Goldcrest Services Private

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 194CSection 250