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

Shiva Ramprasad Nirmal, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Thane

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

ITA 5080/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2020-21 Shiva Ramprasad Nirmal, Office Of The Income Tax E-2/202 Gaurav City, Beverly Officer Ward 2(1), Park, Mira Bhayander Road, Vs. Asher It Park, 6Th Floor, Mira Road East, Thane, Road No. 16Z, Wagle Maharashtra – 401107. Industrial Estate, Thane Pan – Adtpn8556A West, Thane – 400604. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Smt. Usha Gaikwad, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.06.2025, 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. 2020-21. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessee Had Declared Total Income Of Rs.5,81,630/- By Filing His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration, Which Was Selected For E-Verification Scheme 2021 As Per The Provision Of Section 135 (A) Of The Act. During The Verification, It Was Found That The Assessee Has Not Responded To The Notices Issued, Except Seek Adjournment & As Per The 2 Shiva Ramprasad Nirmal

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Usha Gaikwad, SR. D.R
Section 135Section 147Section 148Section 194Section 250Section 44A

Rekha Gupta, Motihari vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Muzaffarpur

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

ITA 81/PAT/2025[1991-92]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Jan 2026AY 1991-92

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.81/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 1991-92 Rekha Gupta………..………….………………. …………………....Appellant Balua Tal, Motihari, East Champaran, Bihar-845401. [Pan: Adkpg6602P] Vs. Acit, Cc, Muzaffarpur………...……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhi Sarkar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Md. A H Chowdhury, Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 05, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 09, 2026 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.12.2024 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 1991-92. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Deriving Income From Business & Other Sources. During The Relevant Period, The Assessee Was Engaged In The Business Of Sale Of Liquor On Wholesale & Retail Basis In The Proprietary Concern Styled As M/S Surya Enterprises. A Search & Seizure Operation Under Section 132(1) Of The Act Was Conducted At The Business Premises As Well As The Residential Premises Of The Assessee. Pursuant Thereto, An Assessment

Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 158BSection 250

Vijay Kumar, Samastipur vs. ITO, Ward 3 (3), Samastipur

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

ITA 79/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.79/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vijay Kumar………..………….………………. …………………....Appellant Kishanpur Warish Nagar, Samastipur, Bihar-848101. [Pan: Aqcpk3836C] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(3), Samastipur…....……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri G. P. Tulsiyan, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 08, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 09, 2026 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.01.2025 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017–18 Declaring A Total Income Of ₹3,51,040. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment & Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Was Duly Issued. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Noticed Cash Deposits Of ₹20,00,000 In The Assessee’S Bank Account. The Assessing Officer Provided Several

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

Birju Kumar, Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 4 (1), Patna

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

ITA 296/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.296/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Birju Kumar…………………….………………. …………………....Appellant Daulatpur Masaurhi, Patna, Bihar- 804452.. [Pan: Daspk0454F] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(1), Patna………..…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Md. A H Chowdhury Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 05, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 09, 2026 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.04.2025 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee’S Case Was Reopened By Issuance Of Notice Under Section 148 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, On The Basis Of Information Received Through Form 26As / Statement Of Specified Financial Transactions (Sft) Under Section 285Ba(1), Indicating Cash Withdrawals Amounting To ₹1,07,38,557 During The Relevant Previous Year. The Assessee Did Not File Return Of Income In Response To The Notice Under Section 148. Thereafter, Notices Under Sections 142(1) & 143(2) Were Issued On Various Dates. Despite Issuance Of Statutory Notices, The Assessee Failed To Comply & Did Not

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 285B

Sanddep Tiwari, West Champaran vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Bettiah, West Champaran

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed to the extent indicated above

ITA 255/PAT/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.255/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sandeep Tiwari..…………….………………. …………………....Appellant Vill: Alitolla, Po Thakraha, Via Nechua Jalalpur, West Champaran, Bettiah, Bihar- 841503.. [Pan: Apopt9064Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(5), Bettiah…....…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singla, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 08, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 09, 2026 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.05.2025 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That As Per Information Available On The Aims Module Of The Income-Tax Department, It Was Noticed That During The Period 09.11.2016 To 30.12.2016 (Demonetisation Period), The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits Of ₹10,00,000 In His Bank Account Maintained With Bank Of India. Accordingly, Notice Under Section 142(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Along With A Questionnaire Was Issued. Since There Was Non-Compliance On The Part Of The Assessee, A Final

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

Rajesh Kumar Sah, Muzaffarpur vs. ITO, Ward- 1 (1), Muzaffarpur

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

ITA 165/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.165/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Rajesh Kumar Sah.………….………………. …………………....Appellant C/O Harilal Prasad Navanagar, Nijamat, Karnowl, Sahebgunj, Muzaffarpur-843125. Bihar.. [Pan: Efwpk4178C] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Muzaffarpur…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri G. P. Tulsiyan, Fca Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Md. A H Chowdhury, Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 06, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 09, 2026 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 04.02.2025 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Did Not File His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018–19. Consequently, Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act Was Issued. However, Even In Response To The Notice Under Section 148, The Assessee Failed To File The Return Of Income. During The Reassessment Proceedings, On Verification Of Bank Accounts, The Assessing Officer Noticed Cash Deposits Aggregating To ₹3,26,54,960, Which Were Treated As Unexplained Money Under Section

Section 148Section 250