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

Sumati G Gupta Securities Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 13(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes in the above terms

ITA 4690/MUM/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2012-13 Sumati G Gupta Securities Income Tax Officer- Private Limited 13(2)(1) C/O – 2Nd Floor, Geeta Building, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Sion Circle, Sion East, Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai- 400022 Pan: Aaacb3475H (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Margav Shukla & Shri Shubham Shah, Ld. Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sushil Bhagwat Shendge,Ld. Sr.D.R. Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.10.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.01.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2012- 13. 2. At The Outset It Is Observed That There Is Delay 114 Days In Filing Of Instant Appeal. The Assessee By Filling Application For Condonation Of Delay, Along With Duly Sworn Affidavit, Has Demonstrated The Reason For The Delay To Effect That The Assessee Company Was Dissolved & Struck Off From The Register Of The Companies With Effect From 31.08.2016. However Subsequently The 2 Sumati G Gupta Securities Private Limited Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Act By Issuing A Notice Dated 28.03.2019 U/S 148 Of The Act, Which Resulted Into Passing The Assessment Order Dated 18.12.2019 U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Act & Making The Addition Of Rs.3,87,673 U/S 68 Of The Act Being Undisclosed Income.

For Appellant: Shri Margav Shukla &For Respondent: Shri Sushil Bhagwat Shendge,Ld. Sr.D.R
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271Section 68

Pellucid Securities Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 7(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4372/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Pellucid Securities Commissioner Of Income Private Limited, Tax Appeal, (Nfac) 301, Turf View, National Faceless Appeal 63, Dadarkar Compound, Centre – Ito Ward 7(3)(1), Vs. Tardeo, Ab-126J, Mumbai Aayakar Bhawan, Maharashtra - 400034 Churchgate, Pan: Aafcp1405L Mumbai Maharashtra – 400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Sanjeev Bhagat, Ld. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.10.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.10.2024, 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. 2014-15. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That There Is A Delay Of 183 Days In Filing This Appeal, As Pointed Out By The Registry, On Which The Assessee Has Claimed That Due To Non-Receipt Of The Impugned Order On Its Email Registered As Well As In Physical Form, The Delay Has Been Occurred, Which Was Neither Intentional Nor Malafide But Because Of The Aforesaid Reason.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Bhagat, Ld. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69Section 69C