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

Pramod Kumar, Kurdi, Manglour vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, Dehradun

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

ITA 4/DDN/2026[2022 2023]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2022-23] Pramod Kumar Vs Cit Appeal Kurdi Manglour, Manglaur, Karanpur Uttarakhand Uttarakhand Pan-Awopk3370R Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Nidhi Saini, Ca Respondent By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 Order Per Bench The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.12.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 23.03.2024 Passed U/S 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Heard The Contentions Of Both The Parties & Perused The Material Available On Record. It Is Found From Record That This Appeal Is Dismissed By Ld. Cit(A) As The Same Was Filed Delayed. The Claim Of The Assessee Is That Assessment Order Was Physically Served On 13.09.2024 & The Appeal Was Filed On 21.01.2024 Therefore, There Was No Delay In Filing The Appeal Before Ld. Cit(A) Who Has Not Appreciated These Facts. We Condoned The Delay If Any, In Filing First Appeal Before Ld. Cit(A) & Restore The Matter To Ao As The Assessment Order Is Also Passed U/S 144 Of The Act. The Assessee Is Directed To File All The Necessary Evidences To Substantiate The Claim Made. Ao Is Directed To Pass The Order Denovo Afresh After Considering The Submissions Filed By The Assessee. With These Directions, The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Allowed For Statistical Purposes.

Section 144Section 250

Horrawala Kishan Sewa Sahkari Samiti Lamited Horrawala, Dehradun vs. I T O, Ward- 1 (1)(1), Dehradun

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

ITA 34/DDN/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Horrawala Kisan Sewa Vs Ito Sahkari Samiti Limited Ward-1(1)(1) Horrawal, Dehradun, Dehradun Uttarakhand-248001 Uttarakhand Pan-Aagfh4362L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sushil Kumar, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 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)/Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Ahmedabad [“Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 13.02.2024 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Heard The Contentions Of Both The Parties At Length & Perused The Material Available On Record. Both The Orders Of Ao As Well As Ld. Cit(A) Are Ex-Parte For The Reason Of Non-Prosecution On The Part Of The Assessee. Looking To The Facts Of The Case & 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

B R Morden School, Pauri vs. I T O, Exemption Ward, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 28/DDN/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] B.R. Morden School Samiti Vs Ito Tara Lodge, Exemption, Ward Tehsil Road Pauri, Pauri, Dehradun Uttarakhand-246001. Pan-Aacab6988M Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rajiv Sahni, Ca Respondent By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.12.2025 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Against The Penalty Order Dated 21.09.2022 Passed U/S 271B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Heard The Contentions Of Both Parties & Perused The Material Available On Record. It Is Stated By Ld. Ar That The Quantum Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Captioned Assessment Year Against The Assessment Order Passed Has Already Been Restored To The File Of Ao By The Tribunal For Passing For Denovo Assessment. Thus, The Current Penalty Proceedings Initiated In The Said Order Has No Legs To Stand. Accordingly, We Delete The Penalty So Levied. The Ao Is At Liberty To Initiate The Proceedings, If The Circumstances Suggests So, In The Set Aside Proceedings In Accordance With Law. With These Directions, Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Allowed.

Section 250Section 271B

Soban Singh, Dehradun, Uttrakhand vs. DCIT Circle 1(1)(1), Dehradun, Uttrakhand

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 26/DDN/2026[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2022-23] Soban Singh, Vs Dcit Anand Nagar, Balawala Circle-1(1)(1) Dehradun, Uttarakhand Dehradun Pan-Djfps8212B Uttarakhand Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Abhinav Vijh, Ca Respondent By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 03.12.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No.Nfac/2021-22/10363960 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 25.03.2024 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Heard The Contentions Of Both The Parties At Length & Perused The Material Available On Record. From The Perusal Of The Table Reproduced At Page 12 Of Ld. Cit(A)’S Order Containing The Party-Wise Details Of Rent Paid During The Previous Year, It Is Observed That Assessee Had Paid Rent To Total Six Parties In Cash Every Month & The Payment Made To Each Individual Owner Was Below The Maximum Limit Prescribed U/S 40A(3) Of The Act Of Inr 10,000/-. The Ao Has Wrongly Considered The Gross Amount Of Rent Paid To All The Landlords As In Violation Of Provision Of Section 40A(3) Of The Act. Since The Rent Paid To Each Individual Land Owner Was Below Inr 10,000/- On Each Occasion, Therefore, Provision Of Section 40A(3) Are Not Applicable. Accordingly, No Disallowance Is Required To Be Made U/S 40A(3) Of The Act. In The Light Of Above Facts, We Delete The Disallowance Made By The Ao. All The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Are Allowed.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40A(3)

Kuldeep Gupta, Dehradun vs. DCIT, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 15/DDN/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Kuldeep Gupta Vs Dcit 80/1, Saraswati Soni Marg, Central Circle Dehradun, Uttarakhand Dehradun Pan-Brgpg6310R Uttarakhand Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Gaurav Gupta Respondent By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 17.11.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Noida [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No.Cit(Appeals), Nodia-3/10047/2018-19 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 06.03.2024 Passed U/S 147 Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Based On The Documents Found During The Course Of Search Carried Out In The Case Of Shri Krishna Sharma & Smt. Sheetal Sharma On 02.02.2022, Case Of The Assessee Was Re-Opened U/S 147 Of The Act, Since As Per Seized Documents Titled As Page 6 & 7 Of Annexure A-2, It Is Found That Assessee Has Purchased Property Alongwith His Brother, Shri Gaurav Gupta For Which Payments Of Inr 15 Lakhs Was Made Though Cheque & Inr 12.50 Lakhs Was Paid In Cash. Accordingly, Ao Passed The Reassessment Order Dated 06.03.2024 U/S 147 By Making Addition Of Inr 6.25 Lakhs Being Assessee’S Share Of 50% In The Cash Payment As Undisclosed Investment U/S 69B R.W.S. 115Bb Of The Act & The Total Income Was Assessed At Inr 9,74,850/-.

Section 147Section 250Section 69B