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

Naghma Mosarrat, Gaya Bihar vs. ITO, Gaya

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 306/PAT/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna23 Sept 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2016-17 Naghma Mosarrat Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Gaya W/O-Md. Amanullah Ansari, Road No.8, Saddam Chowk Ne Gaya Near Shamsu Kirana Shop, Gaya, Bihar-823001 [Pan: Bfrpm2059E] Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Randheer Kumar, Ca Respondent By : Shri Ravi Kant Chowdhary, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2026 O R D E R Per Yogesh Kumar U.S.: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 25.02.2026, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”, For Short) Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. There Is A Delay Of 05 Days In Filing The Appeal. The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay. For The Reasons Stated In The Application For Condonation Of Delay, The Delay Of 05 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Is Hereby Condoned. Naghma Mosarrat; A.Y.: 2016-17 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, Assessee Is A Non-Filer. As Per The Information Received On Insight Portal With The Income Chargeable To Tax Had Escaped Assessment For The A.Y. 2016-17 That The Assessee Has Produced The Property To A Sum Of Rs.49,47,000/- & Deposited Cash Of Rs.12,50,350/-. An Assessment Order Came To Be Passed On 19.01.2024 By Making An Addition Of Rs.14,47,000/- On Account Of Income From Other Sources As Per Provisions Of Section 56(2)(X) Of The Act & Also Made Addition Of Rs.12,80,200/- On Account Of Unexplained Income U/S 68 Of The Act. Aggrieved By The Assessment Order Dated 19.01.2024, Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A). The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order Dated 25.02.2026, Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Randheer Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Chowdhary, CIT, DR
Section 250Section 50CSection 55ASection 56(2)(x)Section 68

Ansar Ali Molla, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 50(1), Kolkata

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2120/KOL/2026[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Sept 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18 Ansar Ali Molla Vs. Ito, Ward-50(1), Kolkata Baliguri Patharghata, P.O-Chakpanchuria, P.S-Newtown, West Bengal-700135 [Pan: Blhpm4773K] Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Nilofer Praveen, Ar Respondent By : Shri Soumitra Ghosh, Addl. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.09.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2026 O R D E R Per Yogesh Kumar U.S.: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 25.05.2026, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”, For Short) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Solitary Grievance Of The Assessee That During The Second Round Of Appeal Before The Cit(A), The Ld. Cit(A) Instead Of Deciding The Impugned Assessment Order Thereon Dated 12.11.2025, Considered & Decided The Previous Assessment Order Dated 24.12.2019, Which Has Already Been Set Aside & The Same Was Non-Est. The Learned Counsel For The Assessee Further Submitted That The Ld. Cit(A) Should Ansar Ali Molla; A.Y.: 2017-18 Have Decided The Assessment Order Impugned Thereon Dated 12.11.2025, Thus, Sought For Allowing The Present Appeal.

For Appellant: Ms. Nilofer Praveen, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumitra Ghosh, Addl. Sr. DR
Section 250