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

M/S. Truthful Vintrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 12(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1718/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Truthful Vintrade Pvt. Ltd.…..……….………….……….……….……Appellant 248, Russa Road, Kol - 700033.. [Pan: Aadct7083N] Vs. Ito, Ward-12(2), Kolkata……………………………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhishek Bansal, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri V. Vidyadhar, Cit, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 13, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.06.2025 Of The Cit(A)-21, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012–13. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Drew Our Attention To The Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Act Dated 13.06.2016, Whereby The Ld. Pcit-4, Kolkata Has Directed The Assessing Officer To Examine The Credits Appearing In The Books Of Assessee As Share Capital Including Premium & Nature Of Transactions, Identity Of Investor & Its Genuineness After Providing Sufficient Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Assessee. The Ld. Ar Therefore Submits That The Present Appeal Becomes Infructuous In View Of The Order Passed U/S 263 By The Ld. Pcit Dated 13.06.2016. M/S Truthful Vintrade Pvt. Ltd 3. We Have Perused The Materials On Record & Find That The Ld. Pcit-4, Kolkata Has Passed An Order U/S 263 Of The Act Dated 13.06.2016 Directing The Assessing Officer To Reexamine The Matter Afresh. We, After Considering The Submission Of The Ld. Ar, Dismiss The Present Appeal As Become Infructuous

Section 250Section 263

Gopal Banik, Kolkata vs. PCIT(Central), Kolkata -2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1430/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2019-20 Gopal Banik…….…………..……..……….………….……….……….……Appellant 20, Apc Road, Kol- 700009.. [Pan: Aegpb1186E] Vs. Pcit (Central)-2, Kolkata…………………………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri K K Khemka, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sandeep Kumar Mehta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 05, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.11.2024 Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2020–21. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee With A Delay Of 174 Days & The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of The Delay. After Going Over The Said Affidavit, We Find Sufficient Reasons Behind The Delay & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

Section 132Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 270A(7)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69A

Macwear, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 22(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6189/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2017-18 Macwear, Dcit, Circle 22(1), Macwear House, First Floor, Room No.322, 3Rd Floor, Vs. Sunmill Compound, Delisle Piramal Chamber, Lal Baug, Road, Mumbai – 400013. Parel, Pan – Aaafm1927E Mumbai - 400012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (Sr. D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.08.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The 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 Ao Vide Assessment Order Dated 13.11.2019 Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Has Made An Addition Of Rs.13,01,267/- Being 1% Of The Average Investments Of Rs.13,01,26,690/-, Mainly On The Reason That The Assessee Has Failed To Provide Calculation/Submissions & Also, In The Computation Of Total Income, Has Not Disallowed Any Expenditure Attributable To The Earning Of Exempt Income As Required Under The 2 Macwear Provision Of Section 14A Of The Act. The Ld. Commissioner, On The Aforesaid Reasons, Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee, Affirming The Addition Made By The Ao. Thus, The Assessee Has Preferred The Instant Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (SR. D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

M/S. Nucleus Fincons Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 15(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5025/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Nucleus Fincons Pvt. Ito 15(2) (2), Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, (Since Strike Off By Roc From Mumbai – 400020. 24/02/2017 Through Erstwhile Director, Kishore Patki), Vs. 503, Ankita Apartments, Opp. Gymkhana, Navghar Road, Mulund, Mumbai – 400081. Pan – Aabc6734A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Nishit Gandhi, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri A.M.K. Mahadevan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.09.2023, 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. 2012-13. 2. In The Instant Case, The Ao Vide Assessment Order Dated 27.11.2019 Under Section 147 R.W.S. 147 Of The Act Has Made The Additions Of Rs.7,00,000,/- & Rs.19,88,290/- Respectively As Unexplained Income Under Section 68 Of The Act & Estimation Of Income @ 1 + 1 % Of Rs.9,94,14,500/- On Credit & Debit Side. 2 M/S. Nucleus Fincons Pvt. Ltd

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri A.M.K. Mahadevan, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 250Section 68