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

Mustak Panirwala, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 19(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7896/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarmustak Panirwala Dcit, Circle 19(1) 7D, Billimorya House, Piramal Chambers, Ground Floor, Proctor Vs. Lalbaug, Parel, Road, Grant Road, Mumbai, Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400012 Maharashtra – 400007. Pan/Gir No. Aabpp4193J (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala & Shri Saiprasad Ghosh Revenue By Shri Umashankar Prasad (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing 07.04.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 07.05.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"], Dated 25.10.2025, Arising Out Of The 2 Mustak Panirwala Assessment Order Dated 27.09.2022 Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"] For A.Y. 2020–21. Brief Facts 2. The Assessee Is An Individual & Proprietor Of “Techno Repair Construction” Engaged In Construction Activity. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 15.02.2021 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 49,76,850/-. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Under The Faceless Assessment Scheme On The Basis Of Information Regarding (I) Large Investment In Immovable Property As Per Form 26Qb, (Ii) Purchase Consideration Being Lower Than Stamp Duty Value & (Iii) High Liabilities As Compared To Income. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, Notices Under Sections 143(2) & 142(1) Were Issued. As Recorded By The Assessing Officer, There Was Initially No Compliance To The Statutory Notices & Partial Compliance Was Made Only At A Later Stage In Response To Show Cause Notices.

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250(6)Section 56(2)(x)Section 68