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

Rajmani Yadav, Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh vs. I.T.O., Jaunpur-II, New

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

ITA 143/VNS/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi14 May 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Rajmani Yadav, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Vill-Balua, Post-Mirshadpur, Jaunpur 222125, Jaunpur Pan: Acppy3832K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Yaspal Gupta, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. Amandeep Kaur, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.05.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 1.06.2025, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed Under Section 143(3) For The A.Y. 2016-17 On 26.12.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Learned A.O. Has On Presumptions & Arithmetical Calculations Arrived On An Imaginary Figure Of Rs. 4703235.00 As Undisclosed Capital & Has Proceeded To Make The Addition. The Learned C.Lt(Appeal) Income Tax Department Has Wrongly Confirmed The Addition Of 4703235.00 That The Learned C.I.T. (Appeal) Has Overlooked The Fact & Order Passed By A.O. On 28.08.2019 For The Assessment Year 2012-13, In Which Capital Balance Has Been Totally Accepted, Hence Order Passed By C.Lt.(A) Is Liable To Be Quashed & Addition Of Rs. 4703235.00 To Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Sh. Yaspal Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amandeep Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi vs. Dc/ACIT, Range - 1, Varanasi

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

ITA 118/VNS/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi14 May 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vs. Dc/Acit, Vishwavidyalaya, Jagatganj, Range-1, Varanasi Varanasi Pan: Aaajs3379Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Ankur Srivastava & Sh. M.M. Srivastava, Advocates Revenue By: Smt. Amandeep Kaur, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.05.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee In Limine, Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed Under Section 144 For The A.Y. 2017-18 On 12.12.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Learned Cit Appeal Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Dismissing The Appeal Without Appreciating Or Considering The Merits Of The Appeal. It Is Humbly Prayed That The Order Of Cit Appeal Being Erroneous May Kindly Be Set Aside. 2. The Learned Cit Appeal As Well As Authority Below Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Treating The Fee Received From Students As Cash Credit Consequently The Addition U/S 69 Made To The Extent Of Rs. 1918611 Being Unlawful May Kindly Be Deleted. 3. That The Appellant Being Assessed As (Status) Of Artificial Juridical Person & Its Income Being Exempt U/S 10(23C)(Iiiab) Read With Rule 2Bbb The Fee Received From Students Being Exempt The Addition Made U/S 69A Is 1 Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya A.Y. 2017-18 Unlawful & Liable To Be Deleted. It Is Humbly Prayed That Addition May Kindly Be Deleted & Appeal May Kindly Be Allowed. 4. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add Modify Or Alter Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal Before The Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Sh. Ankur Srivastava & Sh. M.MFor Respondent: Smt. Amandeep Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69Section 69A