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

Babulal Patel (Through Legal Heir Chetan Babulal Patel), Mehsana vs. ITO 1, Mehsana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2015/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.2015/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Babulal Patel (Through Legal The Ito-1 बनाम/ Heir Chetan Babulal Patel) Mehsana – 382 715 V/S. C/O. Ca Himanshu Gandhi 16Th Floor D Wing,Trade World Building Kamala Mills Compound Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aakpp 6884 D (अपीलाथ)/ Appellant) (*+ यथ)/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jhimanshu Gandhi, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/02/2026 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 22/08/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. In This Appeal, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Categorically Noted & Acknowledged That The Assessment Order Has Been Passed By The Babulal Patel (Through Legal Heir Chetan Babulal Patel) Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri JHimanshu Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr.DR
Section 250

Avijit Gorain, Durgapur vs. I.T.O., Ward - 2(4), Durgapur

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

ITA 2398/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Feb 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2015-16 Avijit Gorain…………….....……..………………….……….……….……Appellant C/O Jain Vinod & Associates, 41A, Ajc Bose Road, Diamond Prestige Nirman, Suite 613, 6Th Floor, Kolkata-700017. [Pan: Aqvpg8082F] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(4), Durgapur…...……...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Vinod Kr. Jain, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Aditya Bikram, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 05, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 18, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.08.2025 Of The Nfac, Delhi Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015– 16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & He Did Not File Any Return Of Income. As Per Information Received By The Assessing Officer, The Assessee Made Transactions In Selling Immovable Property Of Rs.89,46,452/- & Transfer Of Capital Assets Of Rs.31,97,560/-. Due To Absence Of Supporting Documents Or Explanations From The Assessee, The Assessing Officer Added Avijit Gorain Rs.1,21,44,012/- (Rs.89,46,452/- & Rs.31,97,560/-) By Passing An Order U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act.

Section 144Section 147Section 250

Bimal Kumar Sikaria, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 40, Kolkata

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

ITA 2395/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Feb 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2015-16 Bimal Kumar Sikaria…….....……..………………….……….……….……Appellant 159, Ramdulal Sarkar Street, Kolkata-700006. [Pan: Aurps0380C] Vs. Acit, Circle-40, Kolkata…...……...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri A N Chatterjee & G Banerjee, Fcas, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Aditya Bikram, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 05, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 18, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.08.2025 Of The Addl/Jcit(A)-3, 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 In The Business Of Transportation & Filed His Return Of Income For The Relevant Assessment Year Declaring Total Income At Rs.35,55,000/-. The Case Of The Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & Statutory Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued. On Examination Of The P & L A/C & 26As Of The Assessee, The Assessing Officer Found Mismatch In 26As Of Rs.26,78,988/- & Added The Same In The Hands Of The Assessee. Bimal Kumar Sikaria 3. Aggrieved By The Said Order, The Assessee Filed An Appeal Before The Cit(A) Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Partly Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.26,78,988/- As The Failed To Discharge His Onus To Prove His Case.

Section 143(2)Section 250