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, Mumbai vs. Genext Hardware and Parks Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue‟s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6208/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C. V. Bhadang & Shri Prabhash Shankarassistant Commissioner Of V/S. Genext Hardware & Income Tax, Central Circle – बनाम Parks Private Limited 4(2), Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Plot No. C-30, G Block, Raheja Bandra (East), Mumbai – Tower, Bandra Kurla Complex, 400051, Maharashtra Bkc, Mumbai – 400 051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccg5567F Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी प्रत्याक्षेपसं./C.O. No.200/Mum/2026 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 6208/Mum/2025) (A.Y. 2017-18) Genext Hardware & Parks V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited बनाम Income Tax, Central Circle – Plot No. C-30, G Block, Raheja 4(2), Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Tower, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – Bkc, Mumbai – 400 051, 400051, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccg5567F Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Assessee By Shri Madhur Aggarwal,Advocate Revenue By Shri Basavaraj Hiremath,Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17.06.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Prabhash Shankar [A.M.] :- The Instant Appeal Preferred By The Revenue & Cross Objection Of The Assessee Emanate From The Order Passed By The Learned

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 22Section 32

Ashaben Vinodbhai Desai, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 2(2)(1), Surat

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 310/SRT/2026[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Aug 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniashaben Vinodbhai Desai Ito, Ward - 2(2)(1), F/515, Heritage Flat No.501, Aayakar Bhawan, Pali Village, Vs. Majura Gate, Ambedkar Road, Surat Mumbai Pan: Afnpd7701D (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By : Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.08.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.08.2026 O R D E R Per : Suchitra Kamble, J M: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short “Cit(A)”] Dated 05.12.2025 For The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2008-09. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Passing Ex-Parte Order U/S. 250. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Without Passing Speaking Order. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Ld. Assessing Officer Has Erred In Making Addition Of Rs. 80,10,605/- U/S. 69 Of The Act On Account Of Alleged Unexplained Investment. Ashaben Vinodbhai Desai

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69