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

Kapil Khandelwal, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh

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

ITA 335/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 Kapil Khandelwal, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of 56, Moar Kothi, Gangapur, Bareilly Income Tax, Circle-I, Bareilly Pan: Aiypk4908M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Penalty Levied Upon The Assessee Under Section 271(1)(C) By The Ld. Ao On 17.03.2022 & Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. Because Requisite Satisfaction For Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) If The Income Tax Act 1961 Was Not Recorded In The Regular Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2017 Passed A/S 100%, Therefore, Penalty Proceedings Got Wholly Vitiated & Consequently, The Id. "Cit(A)" Ought To Have Quashed The Penalty Order Dated 17.03.2022, Being Illegal, Bad-In-Law & Without Jurisdiction 2. Because The Show Cause Notice For Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Did Not Specify Under Which Limb Penalty Was Sought To Be Imposed I.E.. Whether On Account Of Concealment Of Income Or For Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income & Consequently, The Penalty Order Dated 17.03.2022 Passed By Faceless Assessing Officer Deserved To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Smt. Kumud Yadav, Kanpur vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 281/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Smt. Kumud Yadav, Vs. Assessing Officer, Assessment Plot No. 192A, Awadhpuri Road, Unit, Income Tax Department, Lakhanpur, Kanpur Nagar Nfac, Delhi Pan: Abjpy4062E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Pradeep Seth, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 11.0.025, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Set Aside The Orders Of The Assessing Officer Passed For The A.Y. 016-17 Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Learned Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Appreciating That The Assessment Order Passed U/S 147 Is Without Jurisdiction & Invalid As The Same Violates The Provisions Of "E-Assessment Of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme 2022" Notified On 29.03.22 Framed In Pursuance Of Sub Sections 1 & 2 Of Section 151A Of The Act Laying Down The Issue Of Notice U/S 148 In The Faceless Manner Through Automated Allocation Whereas In The Assessee'S Case It Has Not Been Issued In A Faceless Manner But By Jurisdictional Assessing Officer Who Was Not Assigned The Case In An Automated Manner. (Reliance On Judgement In The Case Of Hexaware Technoligies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Others Reported In 464 Itr P. 430 (Paras 32 To 39).

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Seth, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, Addl CIT DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 250

Gopal Chandra Bagui, Uluberia vs. ITO, Ward 46(1), Range 146, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3013/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2015-16 Gopal Chandra Bagui………….…..………………….……….……….……Appellant Uluberia, Jagadishpur, Howrah-711315. [Pan: Adwpb9619F] Vs. Ito, Ward-46(1), Kolkata..…...……...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Biswajit Sarkar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manas Mondal, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 24, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 27, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.06.2025 Of The Nfac, Delhi Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015–16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Did Not File His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2015-16. As Per Information Available With The Department, The Assessee Has Sold An Immovable Property For A Sale Consideration Of Rs.50,14,000/-. Order U/S 148A(D) Was Passed & Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Did Neither Comply Nor Made Any Submission. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment U/S 144 R.W.S 147 Assessing Total Income Of Rs.50,14,000/- & A Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Was Initiated.

Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

Xerago E-Biz Services Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-3(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4067/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 4067/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 Xerago E-Biz Services Pvt. The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Vs. Corporate Ward 3(3), Plot No.80 & 93, Developed Plot, Chennai Xerago Towers, Industrial Estate, Perungudi, Chennai – 600 096 Pan: Aaacx 0387J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Aroon Praasad, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K, Vp: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Addl./Jcit(A), Varanasi Order Dated 31.10.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2021-22. :- 2 -: 2. The Grounds Raised Read As Follows:- 1. For That The Order Of The Additional / Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Contrary To Law, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & At Any Rate Is Opposed To The Principles Of Equity, Natural Justice & Fair Play.

For Appellant: Shri H. Yeshwanth KumarFor Respondent: Shri Aroon Praasad, Addl.CIT
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 90