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

ACIT 32 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Asha P Kedia, Mumbai

In the result, the CO filed by the Assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3672/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2017-18 Acit 32 1 Ms. Asha P Kedia 252, Kautilya Bhavan, 602, Vishwananak Bldg, Bkc, Bandra East, Vs. Ict Link Rd, Maharashtra - 400051. Andheri East, Maharashtra - 400099. Pan: Aiqpk0746F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.181/M/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3672/M/2024) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ms. Asha P Kedia Assistant Commissioner Plot No. 18, Sagar Jyoti, Of Income Tax-32 (1) 6Th Road, Jvpd Scheme, Vs. 252, Kautilya Bhavan, Vile Parle (West), Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai-400056. 400020. Pan: Aiqpk0746F (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Shashank Mehta, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, Ld. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 17 . 03 .2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28 . 03 .2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal By The Revenue Department & The Cross Objection By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 21.05.2024, 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. Co. No. 181/Mum/2024 Ms. Asha P Kedia 2. Considering The Delay Of 4 Days In Filing Of The Co By The Assessee Is Miniscule, Bonafide & Unintentional As Claimed By The Assessee Is Condoned.

For Appellant: Shri Shashank Mehta, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, Ld. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 250Section 68