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

Jalpaiguri Zilla Regulated Marketing Committee, Jalpaiguri vs. Income Tax Officer / Assessing Officer, Jalpaiguri

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

ITA 2338/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2015-16 Jalpaiguri Zilla Regulated Marketing Committee……….….……….……Appellant Jalpaiguri Sadar, Jalpaiguri-735101. [Pan: Aacaj0159Q] Vs. Ito, Jalpaiguri………...…………………………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ramesh Patodia & Sonal Agarwal, Advocates, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sandeep Kr. Mehta, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 06, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 09, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.09.2025 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 2015–16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Has Not Filed His Returns Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Assessing Officer Got Information That A Huge Cash Deposits Of Rs.1,91,12,639/- Was Made By The Assessee In The Bank Account But Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Relevant Assessment Year. The Assessing Officer Added Rs.1,91,12,639/- To The Total Income Of The Assessee Treating The Same As Unexplained Income.

Section 250

Goodwill Tracon Pvt. Ltd., North Twenty Four Parganas vs. ITO, Ward 11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1386/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jan 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2012-13 Goodwill Tracon Pvt. Ltd.……....………………….……….……….……Appellant 24/1, Ali Haider Road, North 24 Parganas, Kol – 700119.. [Pan: Aaccg8922G] Vs. Ito, Ward -11(1), Kolkata…………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Madhumita Das, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 15, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 09, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.05.2025 Of The Nfac, Delhi [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012–13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Original Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.8,590/-. The Return Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Were Issued & In Response To The Said Notices, The Assessee Company Filed Various Details In Support Of Unexplained Share Capital. The Assessing Officer Found From The Balance Sheet Of The Assessee That The Company Has Received Share Capital Money Goodwill Tracon Pvt. Ltd Of Rs.5,03,65,960/-. The Director Of The Assessee Company Did Not Make Compliance To The Notice Issued U/S 131 Of The Act & The Assessing Officer Assessed The Income Of The Assessee 5,03,74,550/-.

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Maulana Azad College of Engineering and Technology, Patna vs. ITO Exemption, Ward-1, Patna

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

ITA 474/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Years: 2015-16 Maulana Azad College Of Engineering & Technology..…..……….……Appellant Mariam, Manzil, Anisabad, Patna-800002.. [Pan: Aabtm3371M] Vs. Ito-Exemption, Ward-1, Patna…...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri D V Pathy, Sr. Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 08, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.08.2025 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 2015–16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Educational Institution & Is Engaged In The Activity Of Running In Engineering College & The Assessee-Society Is Registered Under Section 12Aa Of The Act. Thereafter, The Assessing Officer Issued Notice U/S 148 Of The Act On The Ground Of Certain Transactions & Cash Deposits Exceeding Two Lakhs Done By The Assessee With State Bank Of India. The Assessing Officer Held That The Deposits Made In The Sbi Was Not Disclosed & The Same Was Held As Unexplained Money & The Assessing Officer Made Addition Of Rs.56,79,506/- U/S 69A Of The Act. Maulana Azad College Of Engineering & Technology 3. Aggrieved By The Said Order, The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Wherein The Appeal Has Been Dismissed By Holding That The Assessee Failed To File Supporting Documents Such As Balance Sheets, Profit & Loss A/C, Bank Statements Etc. To Prove The Genuineness Of The Transaction.

Section 12ASection 148Section 250Section 69A