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

Sumitra Devi Bihani, Siliguri vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2588/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2017-18 Sumitra Devi Bihani…..………...………..............................……….……Appellant C/O Rexine King, Tera Hotel Building, Sevoke Road, Siliguri-734001. [Pan: Adjpb3235A] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(2), Siliguri...………….……………………...……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sujit Basu & Rajeev Mukherjee, Advocates, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S B Chakraborty, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 14, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16 ,2026 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 26.10.2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) For The Ay 2017-18. 2 After Hearing The Rival Contentions, We Find That The Assessing Officer Framed The Assessment U/S 144 By Making An Addition U/S 69A Of Rs.84,74,102/- During Demonetization Period. In The Appellate Proceedings, The Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee By Passing An Ex Parte Order On Account Of Non-Appearance On Behalf Of The Assessee On Different Dates. We Find That The Ld. Cit(A) Dismissed The Appeal By Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer Without Discussing & Deciding The Issues On Merits When The Assessee Failed To Respond To The Sumitra Devi Bihani Opportunities Provided By The Ld. Cit(A). Under The Circumstances, In Our View, The Interest Of Justice Would Be Well-Served If The Appeal Is Restored To The File Of The Ld. Cit(A) With A Direction To Decide The Same On Merits After Affording Adequate Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Assessee. Accordingly, We Set Aside The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) & Restore The Issue To The File Of The Ld. Cit(A).

Section 144Section 250Section 69A

Horizon Hge Electronic Equipment India Pvt Ltd, Gautam Buddha Nagar vs. DCIT, Circle-10(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2695/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2020-21] Horizon Hge Electronicequipment Vs Dcit India Pvt.Ltd., 1St Floor, Awho, Circle-10(1) Sector-29, Noida Sector-37, S.O- New Delhi Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-201303. Pan-Aacch0704R Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Satyen Sethi, Adv. & Shri A.T.Panda, Adv. Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 19.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.03.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)/Addl/Jcit(A)-5, Kolkata [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Addl/Jcit(A)-5 Kolkata/10001/2019-20 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Intimation Order Dated 18.12.2021 Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company, Derived Income From Business & Filed Its Return Of Income On 14.10.2020, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 2,42,00,780/- & Paid Taxes In Terms Of The Concessional Rate Of Tax Provide U/S 115Baa Which Was Denied By Cpc In The Intimation Order Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Act For The Reason That Form 10-Ic Was Filed Delayed.

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 250

DCIT, Circle-7(1), Delhi vs. Dev Rubber Factory Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 3478/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Dcit Vs Dev Rubber Factory Pvt. Ltd. Circle-7(1) 15A/13, Upper Ground Floor, Delhi East Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008. Pan-Aafcm1581L Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri Ankit Gupta, Adv. Date Of Hearing 12.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Revenue Against The Order Dated 30.05.2024 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit (A), Delhi- 3/10359/2019-20 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Company Was Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Tubes For Automobile Tyres & E-Filed Its Return Of Income On 28.10.2017 Declaring Income At Inr 77,50,730/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment Through Cass & Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued On 10.08.2018. Thereafter Statutory Notice U/S 142(1) Alongwith Questionnaire Were Issued On Various Dates From Time To Time & In Response, The Assessee Has Submitted Its Replies. After Considering The Submissions Filed, Assessment Order Was Passed At An Income Of Inr 3,95,31,243/- Vide Order Dated 22.12.2019 U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Making Following Additions:- (I) Bogus Share Capital U/S 68 Inr 53,50,000/- (Ii) Addition On Account Of Rate & Taxes Inr 9,56,145/- (Iii) Addition Of Bogus Freight & Forwarding Expenses & Business Expenses Inr 59,25,588/- (Iv) Addition Of Vehicle Maintenance Expenses & Business Expenses Inr 81,89,820/-

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68