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

Rohit Sukhram Kandhari, Mumbai vs. DCIT, -1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed being infructuous

ITA 4505/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2021-22 Rohit Sukhram Kandhari, National Faceless Appeal Plot No. 61, Brillanto House, Centre (Cit(A)/Dcit -1 Vs. Road No.13, Midc, Andheri (E), (2) (1), Mumbai – 400093. Aayakar Bhavan, Pan – Aadpk 3631 Q Mumbai. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Rituraj Gurjar, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Vinod Kumar, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.05.2025, 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. 2021-22. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessee Has Earned Rental Income Of Rs. 6,40,099/-, However, While Preparing & Filing The Itr, Due To Glitch In Software & Inadvertently Mentioned The Said Income Of 6,40,099/- In Itr Twice, Mentioning Single Property In Two Columns. Whereas It Is A Fact That The Assessee Has Earned The Rental Income Of Rs. 6,40,009/- Only. However, The Cpc, Processed The Return Filed By The Assessee On Dated 13.03.2022, Vide Intimation Dated 22.04.2022, Whereby The Income From House Property Has Been 2 Rohit Sukhram Kandhari

For Appellant: Shri Rituraj Gurjar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Ld. SR. D.R
Section 143Section 154Section 250

Suresh Kumar Chawla, Kanta Khaturia Colony vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Income Tax Office

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1101/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalsuresh Kumar Chawla, Income Tax Officer, Kanta Khaturia Colony, Ward-1(2), B-43, Rajsthan-334001. Vs. Rajasthan. Pan-Adppc6555J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (‘The Cit(A)’ In Short) Dated 30.01.2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Appeal No. Nfac/2019-20/10171438 Against The Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144B Of The Act Dated 16.09.2022 For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Heard The Ld. Sr. Dr & Perused The Materials Available On Record. It Is Prayed By The Assessee That Inadvertently Two Appeals Were Filed, One At The Original Jurisdiction Of The Assessee At Jodhpur Wherein The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Was Registered As Ita No.414/Jodh/2025 (A.Y.2020-21) & Due To Technical Error, The Other Appeal Is Filed Before The Delhi Benches Which Is Present Appeal Before Us. It Is Requested By The Assessee That The Appeal Be Transferred To Jodhpur Bench, Suresh Kumar Chawala Vs. Ito However, Looking To The Facts That The Correct Appeal Has Already Been Listed Before The Jodhpur Bench, Therefore, The Present Appeal Being Duplicate & Hereby Dismissed. The Assessee Is Directed To Pursue To Original Appeal Filed Before The Jodhpur Bench For The Captioned Assessment Year.

Section 143(3)Section 250