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

Imran Dawood Vehvaria, Mumbai vs. Ward 24(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5773/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Prusethassessment Year: 2016-17 Imran Dawood Vehvaria, Ward 24(2)(1), D 701 Remibiz Court, Off Veera Piramal Chamber, Lal Baug, Vs. Road, Andheri, West Mumbai, Parel, Mumbai – 400012. Mumbai – 400053. Pan – Aatpv9817B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 24.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.07.2025, 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. 2016-17. 2. On The Previous Date Of Hearing On 22.12.2025, None Was Present On Behalf Of The Assessee & Therefore, The Case Was Adjourned To Today I.E. 24.12.2025 & Notice Was Directed To Be Served Through E-Mail & Telephonically & Therefore The Assessee Served Accordingly But Still The Assessee Neither Appeared Nor Filed Any Adjournment Application, Thus, We Are Constrained To Decide This Appeal As Ex-Parte. 2 Imran Dawood Vehvaria

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, SR. D.R
Section 147Section 250

Jyoti Embroidery Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 10(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 5637/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2013-14 Jyoti Embroidery Private Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward 10 (2)(1), V1-0 Vara’S House, 1St Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Ganeshwadi, Ground Floor, Mumbai – 400020. Near Mj Market, Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai – 400002 Pan – Aaacj 0872 G (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Dharan Gandhi, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.07.2025 Impugned Herein Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Center (Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (For Short Ld. Commissioner) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short The ‘Act’) For The Ay 2013-14. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessee Has Sold A Land To M/S. Yogeshwar Farms Private Limited For A Sale Consideration Of Rs. 2,15,00,000/- & Claimed The Long Term Capital Gain Of Rs. 1,58,00,000/- In The Return Of Income Filed On Dated 28Th September, 2013, Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 1,57,50,330/-. The Ao Considered The Said Claim Of The Assessee & Ultimately Found That The Stamp Duty Value Of The Property Is Of 2 Jyoti Embroidery Private Limited Rs.387,39,000/- & The Assessee Has Sold The Property For Rs.2,15,00,000/- I.E. Less Than The Value Adopted Or Assessed By The Valuation Authorities Of The State Government & Therefore He Vide Assessment Order Dated 25.09.2017 Under Section 143 (3) Read With Under Section 147 Of The Act, Ultimately Made The Addition Of Rs. 1,72,39,000/- Being Differential Amount Between The Stamp Duty Valuation & The Value Declared By The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Ld. SR. DR
Section 143Section 147Section 250Section 55