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

Pranay Mohan Lokegaonkar, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 22(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7400/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2015-16 Pranay Mohan Lokegaonkar, Ito, Ward 22 (2)(1), 1, Vatsala Niwas, Sohan Singh Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. Chawl, Santacruz-West,- Mumbai – 400012. Mumbai- 400054. Pan – Acxpl4887B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vishwas Mehendale, (Virtually Present) Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.10.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2015-16. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessing Officer, Vide Assessment Order Dated 29.03.2022 Under Section 147 Read With Sections 144 & 144B Of The Act, Has Made The Additions Of Rs.36,00,000/- & Rs.1,12,50,000/- On Account Of Unexplained Investment Under Section 69 Of The Act & Claim Of Long-Term Capital Gain Respectively. 2 Pranay Mohan Lokegaonkar

For Appellant: Shri Vishwas MehendaleFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, SR. D.R
Section 147Section 249Section 250Section 69

Prerna Navinyapurn Mahila Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit, Navi Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 28(2)(1)Mumbai, Vashi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7392/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2017-18 Prerna Navinyapurn Mahila The Income Tax Officer, Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit, Ward 28 (2)(1), Room No.932, 933 Ss Ii, Sector Vs. 4Th Floor, Tower No.6, Vashi 7 Koperkhairane, Station Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400709. Maharashtra – 400703. Pan – Aacap7862Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle Hariya, Ld. Adv. Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.09.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2017-18. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessing Officer, Vide Assessment Order Dated 28.04.2023 Under Section 147 Read With Section 144B Of The Act, Has Made An Addition Of Rs.10,44,854/- Being Unexplained Cash Deposit Under Section 69A Of The Act. 2 Prerna Navinyapurn Mahila Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Ld. SR. D.R
Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 69A

Multi Venture Infotech Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi

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

ITA 3677/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Prusethassessment Year: 2014-15 Multi Venture Infotech Pvt. National Faceless Appeal Ltd., Centre 404 Bldg No. 8A Damodar Park, National Faceless Appeal Vs. Ghatkopar West, Mumbai, Centre, 245-A, North Block, Maharashtra – 400086 New Delhi, Delhi - 110001 Pan : Aaacm9718L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Tejas Sodha, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr.D.R. Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.04.2023, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) /Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2014-15. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessing Officer Vide Assessment Order Dated 24.05.2023 Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 (B) Of The Act Has Made The Additions / Disallowances Of Rs. 2,03,00,000/- & Rs. 96,11,642/- Respectively On Account Of Unexplained Cash Credit Under Section 68 Of The Act & 2 Multi Venture Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Disallowance Of Loss In Derivative Transaction (Variation Proposed).

For Appellant: Shri Tejas Sodha, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, SR.D.R
Section 147Section 250Section 68