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

Santram, Dehradun vs. ITO Ward 1(1)(3), Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3/DDN/2026[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Dehradun09 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Santram Vs Ito Near Subhash Chandra Ward-1(1)(3) Bose Academy, Nathuwala, Dehradun Dehradun-248001. Pan-Demps4349P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rajiv Sahni, Ca Respondent By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.12.2025 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 Penalty Order Dated 24.03.2025 Passed U/S 270A 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 Years Against The Assessment Order Passed Has Already Been Restored Back To The File Of The Ao By The Tribunal Passing For Denovo Assessment Vide Its Order Passed In Ita No.57/Ddn/2025 For Assessment Year 2017-18 Dt. 09.07.2025. 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 Desired, In The Set Aside Proceedings In Accordance With Law. With These Directions, Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Allowed.

Section 250Section 270A

Upsrtc Emp Salary Person Co-Op Lone Samiti Limited, Haridwar vs. ITO, Circle1(3)(1), Haridwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2/DDN/2026[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Dehradun09 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Upsrtcc Emp. Salary Vs Ito Person Co-Op Loan Samiti Ward-1(3)(3) Ltd., Haridwar Bus Stand, Haridwar Haridwar, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand Pan-Aaaau9031C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rajiv Sahni, Ca Respondent By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 04.12.2025 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)/Addl/Jcit(A)-10, Mumbai [“Ld. Cit(A)”] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 29.11.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Before Us, Ld.Ar For The Assessee Submits That During The Period Of Demonetization, Assessee Society Has Deposited 12,98,000/- In Specified Bank Notes (“Sbn”) Which Was Claimed To Have Been Received As Recovery Of The Loans From Its Members However, The Ao Has Made The Addition By Treating The Same As Unexplained Money. Ld.Ar Further Submits That Entire Sum Was Received As A Recovery Of Loans Given To Its Members & Necessary Copy Of Cash Book Alongwith Cash Flow Statement Was Submitted However, These Were Not Appreciated By Ao But Ld. Cit(A) Had Allowed The Part Relief Of Inr 8,30,000/- & Sustained The Balance Amount. Ld.Ar Submits That Sole Basis For Confirming The Addition Is Non-Production Of The Receipts. Ld.Ar Submits That Once The Books Of Accounts Have Been Accepted Wherein Cash Received From Members Is Duly Recorded, No Addition Is Required To Be Made. He Prayed Accordingly.

Section 143(3)Section 250

Mohamad Salim Khan, Roorkee vs. CIT (A) & I.T.O Roorkee, Roorkee

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

ITA 267/DDN/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Dehradun09 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Mohamad Salim Khan Vs Union Of Pathanpura Roorkee, India/Cit(A)/Ito Dist.Haridwar-247663. Roorkee Pan-Adupk3527D Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Ms.Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : 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 Penalty Order Dated 09.05.2022 Passed U/S 271D Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, No One Attended The Proceedings On Behalf Of The Assessee. Therefore, The Appeal Is Adjudicated After Considering The Arguments Of Ld. Cit Dr & Material Available On Record. 3. Heard The Contention Of Ld. Cit Dr & Perused The Material Available On Record. The Penalty Is Levied U/S 271D Of The Act As The Assessee Has Received Cash Of The Sale Consideration From The Sale Of Immovable Properties From Various Persons As Tabulated In The Penalty Order. Before The Lower Authorities, It Was Claimed By The Assessee That Cash Was Received Advance Way Back In Fys 2006-07 To 2008-09 & Only Registration Of The Sale Deed Have Taken Place During The Year Under Appeal. For This, Copies Of Certain Sale Deeds Were Placed In The Paper Book Filed. After Perusing The Same, We Find That None Of The Deed Submitted Before Us, Is Registered Rather They Were Executed On Plain Papers & Were Not Even Singed By Either Of The Parties. Therefore, Their Authenticity Remained Unverified.

Section 250Section 271DSection 71D