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

Shri Jitesh Jayantibhai Jasani, Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward-3 (1) (1), Rajkot

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 869/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 Sept 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.869/Rjt/2025 [ "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 ] Jitesh Jayantibhai Jasani, Ito Ward 3(1)(1), Rajkot, "Krushnkunj", New Gopal Park, Aaykar Bhavan, Race Course Vs. Ankur Vidhyalay Main Road, Road, Rajkot, Gujarat-360001 Street No 3, Near Guruprasad Chowk, Rajkot, Gujarat-360004 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ajfpj7941P (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Fenil H. Mehta. Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Shishir Kumar, Ld. Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/07/2026 25/09/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : :: Order :: Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 30.09.2025 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [In Short ‘Ld.Cit(A)’] Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (In Short ‘Ao’) U/S 147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 21.03.2024. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: 1. That The Learned Cit(A) Has Grievously Erred In Law & On Facts In Upholding The Action Of The Learned A.O. In Making The Addition Of Rs.3,70,000/- U/S 69A R.W.S. 115Bbe Of The Act On Account Of Alleged On-Money Payment Made To Purchase Unit No. 1018 In Project R.K. Empire.

For Appellant: Shri Fenil H. Mehta. Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Shishir Kumar, Ld. SR DR
Section 132Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69

Lilu Gulrajani, Bangkok, Thailand vs. DCIT, (It) Circle 1(2), Kolkata

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2214/KOL/2026[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Sept 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2015-16 Lilu Gulrajani Vs. Dcit (It) Circle-1(2), 25C, Oriental Towers, Ekamai Soi Kolkata 12, Bangkok, Thailand-101100 [Pan: Ankpg5109K] Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar Respondent By : Shri Subrata Aich, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2026 O R D E R Per Yogesh Kumar U.S.: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)(‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 20.05.2026, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”, For Short) For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, An Assessment Order Came To Be Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act On 06.02.2024 By Making Certain Additions. Aggrieved By The Assessment Order Dated 06.02.2024, Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A). The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order Dated 20.05.2026, Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee. As Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dated 20.05.2026, Assessee Preferred The Present Appeal. Lilu Gulrajani; A.Y.: 2015-16 3. The Learned Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That, Though There Was Sufficient Cause To Condone The Delay, The Ld. Cit(A) Committed Error In Not Condoning The Delay & Dismissing The First Appeals, Thus, Sought For Allowing The Captioned Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subrata Aich, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250

Rajesh Gupta HUF, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 28(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8240/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalrajesh Gupta Huf, Acit, House No.41, Street No.3, Circle-28(1), Shanti Niketan, Moti Bagh, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110021. Pan-Aaghr4685G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sanjeev Kapur, Ca Department By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansara, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/07/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2026 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [‘Cit(A)’ In Short] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-10/10131/2018-19 Dated 08.10.2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Short) Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 30.05.2016 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Briefly Stated The Facts Are That Assessee Had E-Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.05.2016 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.18,91,590/- & The Same Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass For The Reason ‘Whether The Investment & Income Relating To Securities Transactions Are Duly Disclosed’ & Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued On 03.07.2017. Thereafter, Various Rajesh Gupta Huf Vs. Acit Notices Issued Along With Questionnaires Were Issued From Time To Time Which Were Duly Replied To By The Assessee. The Ao Concluded That The During The Year Under Appeal, The Assessee Has Declared Long Term Capital Gain (Ltcg) Of Rs.22,71,624/- From The Sale Of Shares Of M/S Kalpa Commercial Ltd. & Of Rs.3,22,63,565/- From The Sale Of Shares Of M/S Eins Edutech Limited Which Were Held As Bogus And, Accordingly, Addition Of Rs.3,66,98,115/- Was Made U/S 68 Of The Act Which Was The Total Sale Consideration Received From The Sale Of Both The Scripts.

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68