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

M/S Mohini Devi Charitable Trust, Varanasi vs. DCIT, C.C. 1, Ranchi

Accordingly, the instant appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 384/RAN/2025[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi16 Apr 2026

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Mohini Devi Charitable Trust……..……………………………...Appellant B 27/96, A-17, Gurudham Colony Durgakund, Varanasi-221010 [Pan: Aactm7207P] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-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 16, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.09.2025 Of The Nfac, Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, An Application For Withdrawal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Dated 15.04.2026, Stating That Due To An Inadvertent Mistake, The Instant Appeal Has Been Filed Before This Bench, In Fact It Is Necessary To Be Filed Before The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Varanasi Bench. He, Therefore, Prayed That The Instant Appeal May Be Allowed To Be Withdrawn. M/S Mohini Devi Charitable Trust 3. We Also Heard The Ld. Dr, For Which The Ld. Dr Has No Objection. Accordingly, Considering The Petition Filed By The Assessee, We Allow The Prayer Made Before Us.

Section 250

Sadhana Singh, Ranchi vs. Assessing Officer, Ranchi

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

ITA 321/RAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi16 Apr 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2020-21 Sadhana Singh. …………………………..……………………………...Appellant Flat-2C, Block-A, Spring Valley Phase-One, Lower Burdwan Compound Ranchi, Jharkhand-834001 [Pan: Igeps9314F] Vs. A.O. Ward 3(1), Ranchi………….………………..……...…..…..Respondent Jharkhand-834001 Appearances By: Shri Harsh 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 13, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 16, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 04.08.2025 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 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual, Did Not File Her Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2020–21. Based On The Specific Information Available With The Income Tax Department, It Was Observed That The Assessee Had Purchased Immovable Property During The Year For A Total Consideration Of Rs. 62,11,100/-. Accordingly, Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued Requiring The Assessee To File Her Return Of Income, However, No Return Was Filed. Subsequently, Notice U/S 142(1) Was Issued, But The Assessee Failed To Comply. Further Sadhana Singh Notices Were Issued Which Remained Uncompiled With. In View Of The Persistent Non-Compliance, The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment U/S 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Act. The Assessing Officer Treated The Sum Of Rs. 62,11,100/- As Unexplained Investment U/S 69A Of The Act. Further, A Sum Of Rs. 6,14,000/- Was Also Added To The Income Of The Assessee & The Income Of The Assessee Was Assessed At Rs. 68,25,100/-.

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Sail Employees Cooperative Housing Society, Ranchi vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Ranchi

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

ITA 318/RAN/2025[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi16 Apr 2026

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2014-15 Sail Employees Cooperative Housing Society………………………...Appellant Sunaina Khaitan, Savitri Enclave Karamtoli, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834001 [Pan: Aahas8163J] Vs. Dcit, Cirlce-1, Ranchi………….………………………..……...…..…..Respondent Jharkhand-834001 Appearances By: None, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Md. Shadab Ahmed, Cit, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 13, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 16, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.07.2025 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 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, Assessee Did Not File Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2014-15 As Required U/S 139 Of The Act. Subsequently, Information Was Received By The Department That The Assessee Had Entered Into Transaction Involving Sale Of Immovable Property Aggregating Of Rs.39,39,72,325/- Comprising Of Two Properties Sold At Rs.31,04,28,281/- & 08,35,44,044/- Respectively. Based On Such Information Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued Calling Upon The Assessee To File Its Return Of Income, However, There Was No Compliance Sail Employees Cooperative Housing Society From The Assessee. Thereafter, Notice U/S 142(1) Was Also Issued But The Assessee Again Failed To Respond. In View Of The Persistent Non-Compliance, The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment Ex-Parte U/S 147 R.W.S 144 & 144B Of The Act, Determining The Total Long Term Capital Gain Of Rs.39,39,72,325/-

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Jay Prakash Singh, C/O Prabhu Singh Kutti Simaria Chatra vs. Appeal Commissioner, Hazirabagh

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

ITA 309/RAN/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi16 Apr 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2016-17 Jay Prakash Singh. …………………………..……………………………...Appellant C/O Prabhu Singh Kutti Simaria Chatra, Hazaribag, Jharkhand-825103 [Pan: Bpbps1002P] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Hazaribag………….………………..……...…..…..Respondent Jharkhand-825301 Appearances By: Shri Mritunjay Kumar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kailash Gautam, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 13, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 16, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.07.2025 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 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, Assessee Filed Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.16,79,900/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act Was Issued. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, It Was Observed That The Assessee Had Claimed Exempt Income Amounting To Rs.79,82,866/- Comprising Of Rs.8,19,000/- As Agricultural Income & Rs.71,63,866/- As Thereof Profits From Partnership Firm. However, Assessee Failed To Furnish Supporting Documents Evidence To Substantiate The Claim Of Such Jay Prakash Singh Exempt Income. Consequently, The Assessing Officer Treated The Entire Amount Of Rs.79,82,866/- As Unexplained Income & Added The Same To The Total Income Of The Assessee. Accordingly, Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act, By Determining Total Income At Rs.96,62,766/-.

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250