s.250(5) — Admission of additional grounds of appeal
The power to allow a ground not taken in the memorandum of appeal — and the way to invoke it properly.
Income-tax Act, 1961
s.250(5)
Income-tax Act, 2025
s.359(3)(c)
In force from 1 April 2026, but s.536(2)(c) preserves the 1961 Act for tax years beginning before that date.
In short
Section 250(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 permits the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals) at the hearing of an appeal to allow the appellant to go into any ground not specified in the grounds of appeal, if satisfied that the omission was not wilful or unreasonable. It is the correct route where a point — most often a jurisdictional one such as approval, satisfaction, limitation or service — was missed when Form 35 was filed. The practice is to file a written application for admission, explaining the omission and annexing revised grounds to be read in supersession, rather than argue the point without a foundation. The corresponding provision in the Income-tax Act, 2025 is section 359(3)(c) — not section 359(5), which is the one-year disposal timeline.
What the provision does
Confers a discretion to admit grounds outside the memorandum of appeal where the omission was neither wilful nor unreasonable.
Threshold questions
- Is the ground one that can be taken on the existing record, or does it need fresh evidence
- Why was it omitted, and can that explanation be stated candidly
- Is it a legal or jurisdictional ground, where the case for admission is strongest
- Has an application been made, or is the point simply being argued
In practice
The recurring disputes.
Arguing a ground that was never admitted
A point argued without an application, and without revised grounds on the record, may not be dealt with at all — and its absence from the appellate order then causes difficulty at the next stage.
Legal grounds on the existing record
Where the ground is purely legal and requires no investigation of new facts, the case for admission is materially stronger. Framing the application to make that clear matters.
Explaining the omission
The statutory test is that the omission was not wilful or unreasonable. A candid explanation — that the approval was obtained only later, or that the record was incomplete when Form 35 was filed — is more persuasive than silence.