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

B.A. International, Meerut vs. DCIT Circle-1(3)(1), Haridwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 53/DDN/2026[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Sumit Kaur Vs Cit(Appeals)/ Ito C/O-Matta Garg & Co., 13A, Subhash 15, Astley Hall, Dehradun, Road, Dehradun Uttarakhand-248001 Uttarakhand Pan-Dmapk1959K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri S.K.Matta, Ca Respondent By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2026 Order Per Bench: The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.12.2025 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 06.11.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Advocate By Profession & Return Of Income Was Filed On 21.08.2017, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 63,20,030/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Wherein Addition Of Inr 41 Lakhs Was Made By Holding The Investment Made In Fdr As Unexplained & Further Invoked The Provision Of Section 115Bbe Of The Act. 3. In First Appeal, Ld.Cit(A) Enhanced The Income & Confirmed The Addition Of Inr 60 Lakhs U/S 68 Of The Act By Holding That The Cash Deposited During Demonetization Period Is Unexplained & No Addition Is Sustained Towards The Investment In Fdr.

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Abhishek Banta, Hardwar vs. ITAT, Dehradun

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

ITA 45/DDN/2026[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2013-14] Abhishek Banta Vs Itat, 1, Near Hotel Rama Dehradun Bench, Krishna, Haridwar Railway Income Tax Road, Haridwar, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand -249401. Pan-Ainpb7304D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Mrinali Sharma, Ca Respondent By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2026 Order Per Bench: The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.11.2025 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No.288/2013-14 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 15.05.2023 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Heard The Contentions Of Both The Parties At Length & Perused The Material Available On Record. It Is Observed That Both The Lower Authorities I.E. The Ao As Well As Ld. Cit(A) Passed The Orders Ex-Parte For The Reason Of Non-Prosecution On The Part Of The Assessee. In View Of These Facts & In The Interest Of Justice, One More Opportunity Is Provided To The Assessee To Represent Its Case & Accordingly, Matter Is Restored To The File Of Ao To Pass The Order Denovo Afresh. The Assessee Is Directed To Participate In The Remand Proceedings Before The Ao & File All The Necessary Evidences To Substantiate The Source Of Cash Deposited Into Bank. With These Directions, All The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Allowed For Statistical Purposes.

Section 147Section 250

Sumit Kaur, Dehradun vs. Income Tax Office, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 33/DDN/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Sumit Kaur Vs Cit(Appeals)/ Ito C/O-Matta Garg & Co., 13A, Subhash 15, Astley Hall, Dehradun, Road, Dehradun Uttarakhand-248001 Uttarakhand Pan-Dmapk1959K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri S.K.Matta, Ca Respondent By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2026 Order Per Bench: The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.12.2025 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 06.11.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Advocate By Profession & Return Of Income Was Filed On 21.08.2017, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 63,20,030/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Wherein Addition Of Inr 41 Lakhs Was Made By Holding The Investment Made In Fdr As Unexplained & Further Invoked The Provision Of Section 115Bbe Of The Act. 3. In First Appeal, Ld.Cit(A) Enhanced The Income & Confirmed The Addition Of Inr 60 Lakhs U/S 68 Of The Act By Holding That The Cash Deposited During Demonetization Period Is Unexplained & No Addition Is Sustained Towards The Investment In Fdr.

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Mohamad Salim Khan, Roorkee vs. CIT (A) &ITO Roorkee, Roorkee

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 266/DDN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Mohamad Salim Khan Vs Union Of Pathanpura, Roorkee, India/Cit(A)/Ito Distt.-Haridwar, Roorkee Uttarakhand-247663 Uttarakhand Pan-Adupk3527D Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2026 Order Per Bench: The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.10.2025 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2022 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, No One Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Therefore, The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Taken For Hearing In The Absence Of The Ld.Ar & On The Basis Of Material Available On Record. 3. Heard The Contention Of Ld.Sr.Dr & Perused The Material Available On Record. We Find That The Addition Of Inr 4,31,000/- Was Made By Invoking The Provision Of Section 50C Of The Act. The Assessee Had Purchased Various Properties During The Year Under Appeal & There Was Difference Between The Sale Consideration As Per Sale Deeds & The Value Determined By The Stamp Valuation Authorities & Since The Difference Was In Excess Of The Tolerance Limit Provided In Section 50C Of The Act. No Satisfactory Explanation Was Tendered Before Us With Respect To Such Difference In Valuation. Thus, Looking To These Facts, We Find No Error In The Order Passed By Ld.Cit(A) In Upholding The Addition Made By Ao U/S 50C Of The Act. Accordingly Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Hereby, Upheld.

Section 147Section 250Section 50C