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

Hi Tech Foods, Parwanoo vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Shimla

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 54/CHANDI/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.54/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.55/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.56/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.74/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.57/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.58/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Hi Tech Foods Ito Ward-1 बनाम/ Nh-22, Sector-6, Upmohal Parwanoo, Aaykar Bhawan-1 Vs. Sector-Vi, Solan (Hp) -173220 Shimla (Hp) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacfh-7996-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) & Smt. Shruti Khandelwal (Advocate) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) - Ld. Sr Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) & Smt. ShrutiFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

Vatva Industries Association Charitable Trust, Ahmedabad vs. I.T.O. Ward 2 Exemption, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 760/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.760/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2020-21 Vatva Industries Association The I.T.O. बनाम/ Charitable Trust Ward-2 Exemption V/S. Phase-I, Ahmedabad – 380 015 Nr. Old Nirma B/H. Sbi Vatva Ahmedabad – 382 445 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaatv 1541 M (अपीलाथ*/ Appellant) (+, यथ*/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jainish Parikh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 12/02/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Had Alleged That There Was A Calculation Mistake On The Part Of The Cpc While Assessing The Income Of The Assessee. In Vatva Industries Association Charitable Trust Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Jainish Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr.DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 250

Pragnaben Umeshbhai Yagnik, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2529/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.2529/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Pragnaben Umeshbhai Yagnik The Ito बनाम/ 118, Saket Raw House Ward-1(2)91) V/S. B/H. Memnagar Gram Ahmedabad – 380 015 Panchayat Memnagar S.O. Ahmedabad – 380 025 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aahpy 1844 P (अपीलाथ)/ Appellant) (*+ यथ)/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rameshwar P. Meena, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 28/06/2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Assessee, In This Appeal, Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Lower Authorities In Making/Confirming The Addition Of Rs.1,00,01,000/- On Account Non-Deposit Of Tax Of Short Term Capital Gain (Stcg) Earned By The Assessee. Pragnaben Umeshbhai Yagnik Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2015-16 2

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P. Meena, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 250

Vijaykumar Vaghajibhai Patel, Petlad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(3)(1), Petlad

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2122/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.2122/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 Vijaykumar Vaghajibhai Patel The Ito बनाम/ 89, Ashray Tenement Ward-1(3)(1) V/S. Maa Krupa Petlad – 388 450 Near Geb Anand Petlad – 388 450 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Anfpp 2671 N (अपीलाथ)/ Appellant) (*+ यथ)/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.T. Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 29/09/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Lower Authorities In Making/Confirming The Addition Of Rs.32,79,000/- On Account Of Unexplained Cash Deposited In The Bank Account Of The Assessee. Vijaykumar Vaghajibhai Patel Vs. Itok Asst. Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri B.T. Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr.DR
Section 250Section 69A

Bhagwati Trading Co., Mehsana vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Patan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2115/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.2115/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year :2018-19 Bhagwati Trading Co. The Ito बनाम/ 38, Market Yard (Gunj Bazar) Ward-1 V/S. Visanagar Patan – 384 265 Mehsana – 384 315 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabfb 5914 D (अपीलाथ+/ Appellant) (,- यथ+/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rushin Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 29/10/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. The Assessee, In This Appeal, Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Enhancing The Assessment By Rs.11,05,019/- For Alleged Violation U/S.40A(3) Of The Act. Bhagwati Trading Co. Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2018-19 2

For Appellant: Shri Rushin Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 250Section 40A(3)