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

Sudha, Gorakhpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Gorakhpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is held to be allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 130/VNS/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi31 Aug 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Sudha, Vs. Income Tax Officer Basantpur, Geeta Press, Ward-2(2), Income Tax Office, Gorakhpur-273001 Gorakhpur Pan: Avcps5016P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri. Sudipta Paul, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.08.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.08.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit Nfac, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Vide His Order Dated 6.01.2024, Has Dismissed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed Under Section 143(3) For The A.Y. 2016-17 On 17.12.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. Because The Appellate Order Dated 06.01.2024 Passed By Cit(A) In Appeal No. Cit(A), Gorakhpur/10296/2018-19, Impugned In The Present Appeal, Cannot Be Said To Have Been Passed In Accordance With Law Relating To Hearing & Disposal Of Appeal As Contained In Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961. 2. Because Non-Compliance To The Notices Issued By The Id. Cit(A) For Hearing Of Appeal Was Solely For The Reason That The Appellant Was Prevented By "Sufficient & Reasonable Cause" (Being Un-Awareness Of The Notices Issued For Hearing As Income Tax Matters Was Being Handled By The Accountant Of The Appellant), Therefore The Cit(A) Had Erred In Law & On Facts In Dismissing The Appeal Ex-Parte Without Considering The "Reasonable Cause Of The Appellant.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sudipta Paul, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 50CSection 54

K G PAN Products (P) Ltd., Gorakhpur vs. Dy/Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Gorakhpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 107/VNS/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi31 Aug 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2020-21 K G Pan Products (P) Ltd., Gram- Vs. Dy/Asstt. Commissioner Of Jharawa, Post-Bargo Bahrampur, Income-Tax, Circle-1, Income Gorakhpur-273016 Tax Office, Gorakhpur Pan: Aadck7464N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Application Revenue By: Sh. Deepak Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.08.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.08.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has In Limine Dismissed The Appeals Of The Assessee, That Were Filed Against The Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act That Was Passed For The A.Y. 2020-21 On 21.09.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. Because The Appellate Order Dated 12.03.2025 Passed By Cit(A) In Appeal No. Npac/2019-20/10204090, Impugned In The Present Appeal, Cannot Be Said To Have Been Passed In Accordance With Law Relating To Hearing & Disposal Of Appeal As Contained In Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961. 2. Because Non-Compliance To The Notices Dated 06.03.2025 Issued By The Id. Cit(A) Fixing The Date Of Hearing As 12.03.2025 Was Solely For The Reason That The Appellant Was Prevented By "Sufficient & Reasonable Cause" (Being Medical Urgency Of His Counsel Cum Representative Ca Saurabh Agarwal Based At Prayagraj), Therefore The Cit(A) Had Erred In Law & On Facts In Dismissing The Appeal Ex-Parte Without Considering The "Reasonable Cause Of The Appellant.

For Appellant: ApplicationFor Respondent: Sh. Deepak Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 80G