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

Shree Bhogawati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Kolhapur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2195/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2194 To 2198/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 To 2014-15 Shree Bhogawati Sahakari Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Kolhapur. Shahunagar Parite, Sugar Factory, Shahunagar Parite, Tal- Karveer, Kolhapur- 416211. Pan : Aaaas3731R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S. Pathak Revenue By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 26.06.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2010-11 To 2014-15 Respectively. 2. There Is Delay In Filing Of The Present Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Application For Condonation Of Delay Duly Supported By An Affidavit That The Appeals Within The Prescribed Time Limit. After Hearing Ld. Dr, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals. 3. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Five Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 4. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.2194/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2010-11 For Adjudication As The Lead Case.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)

Shree Bhogawati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Kolhapur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2194/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2194 To 2198/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 To 2014-15 Shree Bhogawati Sahakari Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Kolhapur. Shahunagar Parite, Sugar Factory, Shahunagar Parite, Tal- Karveer, Kolhapur- 416211. Pan : Aaaas3731R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S. Pathak Revenue By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 26.06.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2010-11 To 2014-15 Respectively. 2. There Is Delay In Filing Of The Present Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Application For Condonation Of Delay Duly Supported By An Affidavit That The Appeals Within The Prescribed Time Limit. After Hearing Ld. Dr, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals. 3. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Five Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 4. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.2194/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2010-11 For Adjudication As The Lead Case.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)

Poonam Sodhi, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7105/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.7105/धिल्ली/2025 (नि.व. 2017-18) Poonam Sodhi, 5217, Dlf Phase Iv, Dlf City, Gurgaon, Haryana 122002 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Bfvps-5961-R बिाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hsiidc Building, Vanijya Nikunj, Udhyog Vihar, Phase-V, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Gurgaon, Haryana 122001 अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant By : Shri Saurabh Sharma, Advocate प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 15/12/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Vododara [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 04.07.2024, For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri Saurabh Sharma, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submits That The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 8,03,000/- Comprising Of Income From House Property & Interest Income. The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under Cass To Examine Large Cash Deposits During Demonetization Period Vis-À-Vis The Returned Income. Statutory Notices U/S. 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A