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

Arnon Builders and Developers Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 73 (1), Delhi

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

ITA 5263/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Arnon Builders & Developers Vs Dcit Pvt.Ltd., Unit No.101, 1St Floor, Circle-73(1), World Mark-2, Asset -8, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi Aerocity, Igi Airport, South West Delhi, Delhi-110037. Pan- Aafca9046G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Saksham Singhal, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 20.04.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.04.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.06.2025 Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)/ Addl/Jcit (A) Bhubaneswar [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2015-16/10241971 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Order Dated 16.08.2023 Passed U/S 201(1)/201(1A) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Heard The Parties & Perused The Material Available On Record. It Is Observed That In The Instant Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee By Observing That The Same Was Withdrawn By The Assessee. Whereas The Ld. Ar Submits That No Such Prayer Was Made For Withdrawal Of The Appeal Under Reference. Under These Circumstances, We Set Aside The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) & Remand The Matter Back To The File Of Ld. Cit(A) With Direction To Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee After Providing Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Assessee. The Assessee Is Also Directed To Participate In Proceedings Before Ld. Cit(A) & File All The Relevant Details In Support Of The Grounds Of Appeal Taken. With These Directions, All The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Assessee Are Allowed For Statistical Purposes.

Section 201(1)Section 250

Indira Kumari, Ranchi vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Ranchi

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

ITA 376/RAN/2025[23-24]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi17 Apr 2026

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2023-24 Indira Kumari……………………………………………….……...Appellant Priyadarshi Academy Bajpayee Path, Hinoo Ranchi, Jharkhand-834001 [Pan: Akopk1488L] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Ranchi……………………………..……...…..…..Respondent Jharkhand-834001 Appearances By: None, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kailash Gautam, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 15, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 17, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.08.2025 Of The Nfac, Delhi [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2023-24. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessee Is An Individual Filed Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.6,95,160/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass On Account Of Large Investment In Bonds, Debentures Vis-À-Vis Return Of Income Claim Of Deduction U/S 54F Of The Act. During The Assessment Proceedings, Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Were Issued. However, Assessee Only Partially Complied With Said Notices. In View Of The Non-Compliance, The Assessing Officer Proceeded To Complete The Assessment U/S 144 Of The Indira Kumari Act. The Ld. Ao Made The Addition On Account Of Long-Term Capital Gain Of Rs.1,86,89,102/-, Disallowance Of Deduction Claim Under Chapter Via Of Rs.1,68,921/-. Accordingly, The Income Of Assessee Was Assessed At Rs.1,95,53,183/-.

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 54F

Pawan Kumar Poddar, Jamshedpur vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Jamshedpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, subject to payment of cost of Rs

ITA 374/RAN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi17 Apr 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2021-22 Pawan Kumar Poddar……………………………………………...Appellant C.H Area, Road No.13 Sonari, Jamshedpur Jharkhand-831011 [Pan: Abjpp6962C] Vs. Acit, Central Circle, Jamshedpur…………………..……...…..…..Respondent Jharkhand-834001 Appearances By: Shri Nitin Kr. Pasari, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kailash Gautam, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 15, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 17, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.03.2025 Of The Nfac, Delhi [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, Assessee Filed Return Of Income Declaring Income Of Rs.9,92,630/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass Primarily To Examine Relating To Cash Deposit. Accordingly, Statutory Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Furnished Certain Details, However, The Same Were Found To Be Unsatisfactory. Accordingly, The Assessing Officer Further Observed Assessee Had Long Term Capital Gain Arising From Sale Of Immovable Pawan Kumar Poddar Property, However, No Proper Explanation Of Supporting Documents Were Furnished, In Response To Specific Queries Raised By The Assessing Officer. In Absence Of Satisfactory Explanation, The Assessing Officer Treated The Cash Deposit Of Rs.31,47,000/- As Unexplained Cash & Also Made Addition In Respect Of Ltcg Amounting To Rs.21,78,069/-. Accordingly, Total Income Of The Assessee Was Assessed At Rs.63,17,700/-.

Section 143(2)Section 250

K P Automobiles Private Limited, Ranchi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(A), Ranchi

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

ITA 303/RAN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi17 Apr 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2023-24 K P Automobiles Private Limited………………………………………...Appellant 510, Industrial Area Kokar, Ranchi Jharkhand-834001 [Pan: Aafck0101N] Vs. Cit(A), Ranchi…….………………………..……...…..…..Respondent Jharkhand-834001 Appearances By: Shri Manjeet Verma, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kailash Gautam, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 15, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 17, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.08.2025 Of The Nfac, Delhi [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2023-24. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass Primarily To Examine Issues Relating To Low Net Profit. Accordingly, Statutory Notice U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued. However, Assessee Failed To Comply With The Notices Issued During The Assessment Proceedings. In View Of Non-Compliance, The Assessing Officer Proceeded To Complete The Assessment U/S 144 Of The Act. During The Course Of Assessment, The Assessing Officer Observed That Unexplained Cash Credit Amounting To Rs.47,14,000/- Which Were K P Automobiles Private Limited Not Satisfactorily Explained By The Assessee. Accordingly, The Assessing Officer Treated The Said Amount As Unexplained Income & Completed The Assessment By Determining The Total Income At Rs.1,44,97,923/- As Against The Return Income.

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 249(3)Section 250