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

Ommi Sandeep, Vizianagaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vizianagaram

ITA 507/VIZ/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon'Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 247/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/ Assessment Year:2017-18) The Chinnampeta Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited Chinnampeta Village Chinnampeta Post, Chatrai Mandal Krishna – 521214, Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aacat7997E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) करदाता का प्रतिनिधित्व / Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतिनिधित्व / Department Represented By सुनवाई समाप्त होने की तिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement V. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 3(5) C.R. Building, 1St Floor Annex M.G. Road, Vijayawada Andhra Pradesh (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar 16.12.2025 24.02.2026 आदेश /Order Per Omkareshwar Chidara: 1. The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 31.10.2025, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short 'Act') By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”], For The A.Y. 2017-18.

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 250Section 80P(2)(a)

Jks Abasan LLP, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 594/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2017-18 Jks Abasan Llp…………….....……..………………….……….……….……Appellant P-4, Black Lanen, Kol-700012. [Pan: Aalfj9634N] Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata..…...……...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. Datta, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 29, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 24, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10.03.2025 Of The Nfac, Delhi Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017–18. 2. At The Very Outset, The Assessee Has Challenged By Taking Legal Ground That Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Dated 21.08.2018 Is Not In Conformity With The Instruction Issued By Cbdt Instruction No.1/2011 Dated 31.01.2011 & Since The Notice Issued U/S 143(2) Is Defective, The Assessment Order Is Void & Fit To Be Quashed. The Ld. Counsel Further Submits That Since Legal Issue Goes To The Root Of The Matter, Therefore, The Same May Be Admitted For Adjudication. After Considering The Facts Of Jks Abasan Llp The Case & Keeping In View The Decisions Of The Hon’Ble Apex Court In The Case Of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd V. Cit [1998] 229 Itr 383, We Are Inclined To Admit The Legal Ground For Adjudication.

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

Sahanur Mondal, Taki vs. ITO, Ward 49(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2159/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2026AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2013-14 Sahanur Mondal………….....……..………………….……….……….……Appellant Dakshin Gollachanda, P.O Taki, Sankchura, North 24 Parganas-743429.. [Pan: Bogpm8081J] Vs. Ito, Ward-49(1), Kolkata..…...……...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S B Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 20, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 24, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.08.2025 Of The Nfac, Delhi Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013–14. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Of The Assessee Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income Declaring Income Of Rs.6,38,270/-. The Assessment Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 148 & The Assessee Could Not File Return Of Income. The Assessing Officer Noted That The Assessee Made Cash Deposits In Two Bank Accounts Of Assessee’S Minor Children. The Assessing Officer Assessed The Total Income Of The Assessee As Under: Sahanur Mondal

Section 148Section 250

Fabtech, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 30(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 198/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2015-16 Fabtech……………...…….....……..………………….……….……….……Appellant 102A, Ballygunge Place, Kol-700019. [Pan: Aadff1311L] Vs. Ito, Ward-30(1), Kolkata…...……...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ankit Jalan, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Aditya Bikram, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 04, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 24, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.11.2024 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 Is An Individual & Filed Income Tax Return For The Year Under Consideration Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.4,27,000/-. The Case Of The Assessee Is Selected For Scrutiny & Accordingly Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued & In Response, The Ar Of The Assessee Appeared & Filed Relevant Documents & Submissions. The Assessing Officer Found That The Submissions Of The Assessee Are Not Tenable & An Amount Of Rs.98,83,992/- Which Is Alleged To Be Received During The Financial Year 2014-15 From Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Ltd. Disallowed & Added Back To The Income Of The Assessee. Fabtech 3. Aggrieved By The Said Order, The Assessee Filed An Appeal Before The Cit(A) Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee.

Section 143(2)Section 250