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

Narayan Mahapatra, Bhubaneswar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhubaneswar, Odisha

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

ITA 524/CTK/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Dec 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.524/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-2020) Narayan Mahapatra, Vs Dcit, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar B-7, Green Park, Jagamohan Nagar, Jagamara, Bhubaneswar, Odisha-751030 Pan No. :Afgpm 9438 K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satya Prakash Sahoo, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Addl/Jcit(A)-3, Hyderabad, Dated 13.03.2025 For The Assessment Year 2019-2020. 2. At The Outset, We Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Delayed By 121 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported With An Affidavit Stating Therein That The Delay Occurred Due To Bona Fide Reasons Beyond The Control Of The Assessee. It Has Also Been Mentioned In The Affidavit That The Assessee Is Employed With An Mnc Company, Infosys Ltd., As A Senior Delivery Manager. His Nature Of Work Requires Frequent Travel & Deputation To Bengaluru & Overseas Locations As & When Demanded By The 2 Employer. Due To These Professional Exigencies, The Assessee Was Unable To Devote The Adequate Time To Prepare & File The Appeal Within The Prescribed Time. The Contents Of The Affidavit Reads As Under :-

For Appellant: Shri Satya Prakash Sahoo, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

Krishna Silver Ornaments, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer Ward - 2(1)(1), Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is partly allowed, in above terms

ITA 427/RJT/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.427/Rjt/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: (2022-23) Krishna Silver Ornament, Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1)(1) Soni Bazar, Mandvi Chowk Near Aayakar Bhawan, Race Course Bus Station, Rajkot - 360001 Ring Road, Rajkot - 360001 स्थायी लेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aamfk1438J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/11/2025 आदेश / O R Der Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am; Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2022-23, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Dated 23/06/2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Dated 05/09/2024, U/S 272A(1)(D) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: 1. The Penalty Order U/S. 272A(1)(D) Of The Act Is Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 250Section 272A(1)(d)