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

Mohammad Asad Abdul K Shaikh, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5821/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm Mohammad Asad Abdul K. Shaikh Assessing Officer Ward 41(4)(2), B/803-804, Meadow Park, Sv Road, Mumbai Vs. Mumbai – 400102. Pan/Gir No. Afzpm6097D (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : None : Shri Praveen K. Srivastav, Sr. Dr Respondent By : 20.11.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2025 O R D E R Per Narender Kumar Choudhry, J M: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.08.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 48, Mumbai (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2017-18. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Vide Assessment Order Dated 08.03.2025, U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act, Has Made The Disallowance Of Expenses To The Tune Of Rs. 5,35,714/- On Account Of Expenses Incurred By The Assessee In The Absence Of Complete Details Qua Diesel & Lorry Expenses & Tea & Refreshment, Which Was Sustained By The Ld. Commissioner. This Court Observe That Before The Ao, The Assessee Though Duly Furnished Copy Of Ledger Account, Etc., However, The Same Was Not Found Satisfactorily Mainly On The Reason That Expenses Were Incurred By The Assessee In Cash & In The Ledger There Is Not A Single Entry Showing Narration Of The Motor Vehicle Use & Therefore In The Absence Of Complete Details & Looking To The Nature Of Business Mohammad Asad Abdul K. Shaikh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: 20.11.2025
Section 147Section 250

Stella D Souza, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 31(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5719/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2013-14 Ms. Stella D Souza, Ito 31(2)(1), B/102 Diptigreen, Kautilya Bhavan Opp Bombay Cambridg School Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Chakala, Andheri (E), Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 099 Mumbai - 400099 Pan: Acjpd4624Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri S.C. Agarwal, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Praveen K. Srivastav, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.03.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Addl/Jcit(A) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2013-14. 2. In This Case, The Assessee Being An Individual & Director In M/S. Silver Global Services Pvt. Ltd. Had Earned Interest Income Of Rs.6,48,842/- From Fixed Deposits With Model Co-Operative Bank Ltd. & In Order To Avoid Premature Encashment Of Fd Had Taken Loan Against Such Fd From Model Co-Operative Bank Ltd. & Paid Interest To The Said Bank To The Tune Of Rs.8,39,626/- & Since The Interest Paid Was More Than The Interest Received, Therefore, Has Not Shown Such Interest Earned.

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Agarwal, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen K. Srivastav, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 250

Dhanshri Dilip Gangwani, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-31(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 5472/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Dhanshri Dilip Income Tax Officer, Gangwani, Ward-31(2)(1), Plot No.14/114, Akshar Chsl, Kautilya Bhavan, Motilal Nagar No.1, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Opp. Best Colony, Bandra (East), Goregaon (West), Mumbai - 400051 Mumbai – 400 104 Pan: Boopk8538J (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Ketan Vajani, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Praveen K. Srivastav, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 03.07.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Center (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. 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That There Was Delay Of 210 Days In Filing 1St Appeal Before Ld. Commissioner Challenging The Assessment Order Dt. 24.04.2023 U/S 147 Read With 144(B) Of The Act, On Which The Assessee Though Claimed Before The Ld. Commissioner That Her Mother In Law Had Suffered Severe Health Issues & For That Reason She Remained Hospitalized For Long Time. Therefore, The Assessee Went To Her Native Place At Chindwara

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Vajani, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen K. Srivastav, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 250