← All Phrases

“Section 250(6)”

Section References (mined)Section 250Section 250(6)4,093 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 250(6) is CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. (38 ITD 320), cited in 2,267 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 250(6)

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.

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.

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.

CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)
297 CTR 614 · 2017 · High Court
659
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution or default in appearance. Under Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, the CIT(A) must decide the appeal on its merits, even in an ex parte proceeding.

Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors.
2 SCC 107 · 1987 · Supreme Court
451
citing judgments

Courts must adopt a liberal approach when considering applications for condonation of delay, preferring to decide cases on their merits rather than allowing technicalities of limitation to scuttle justice. This principle applies to ensure the substantive rights of parties are not defeated by minor delays.

CIT v. Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
372 ITR 619 · 2015 · High Court
391
citing judgments

Transactions defying human probability cannot be applied to isolated purchases if sales are accepted as genuine, and purchases cannot be disallowed without considering the entire transaction and documentary evidence. Failure to produce parties in an assessment proceeding may not be fatal to the assessee.

New Diwan Oil Mills v. CIT
296 ITR 495 · 2008 · High Court
351
citing judgments

The High Court can return a reference unanswered if the assessee fails to appear or provide assistance. This illustrates the broader principle that appellate authorities have inherent power to dismiss appeals for non-prosecution when a party does not effectively pursue their case.

Inder Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh
2025 INSC 382 · 2025 · Supreme Court
267
citing judgments

Non-deliberate procedural delays caused by circumstances beyond control must be condoned in the interest of substantial justice, even if the delay is significant, such as over 1500 days.

Judgments citing Section 250(6)

Sangita Ramchandra Mahadik, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 81(2), Pune

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

ITA 2419/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2419/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sangita Ramchandra Mahadik, Ito, Ward-81(2), Pune E-704, Dewdale Housing Society, Opposite Tranquille Society, Vs. Datta Mandir Road, Wakad, Pune-411057 Pan : Ajipm3603J अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kamal Valvani Department By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 28-01-2026 Date Of 30-01-2026 Pronouncement :

For Appellant: Shri Kamal ValvaniFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

without himself going into the merits of the case. Thus, in our view, his order is in violation of the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. 7. On the above facts and in the circumstances of the case, we deem it fit, in the interest of justice

Jitendra Nanasaheb Thorat, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(4), Nashik

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

ITA 2307/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2307/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Jitendra Nanasaheb Thorat, V Income Tax Officer, A-7, Chaitrapalavi Apartment, S Ward-2(4), Nashik. Ashok Marg, Near Bank Of Maharashtra, Behind Fame Cinema, Nashik – 422006. Pan: Afypt8886Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi (Through Virtual) Revenue By Shri Ajitesh Kumar Meema –Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 29/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2011-12 Dated 28.07.2023 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Act, Dated 27.12.2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

make further inquiry and report the result of the same to him as found in Section 250(4) of the Act. Further Section 250(6) of the Act obliges the CIT(A) to dispose of an appeal in writing after stating the points for determination and then render a decision

Sanjay Vasantrao Patil, Satana vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - Malegaon

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

ITA 1894/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI R.K. PANDA (Vice President), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

going into the merits of the case. Thus, in our view, his order is in violation of the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. 8. On the above facts and in the circumstances of the case, we deem it fit, in the interest of justice and fair play

Sanjay Vasantrao Patil, Satana vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - Malegaon

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

ITA 1893/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI R.K. PANDA (Vice President), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

going into the merits of the case. Thus, in our view, his order is in violation of the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. 8. On the above facts and in the circumstances of the case, we deem it fit, in the interest of justice and fair play

Asha Shivajirao Bhise, Latur vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2110/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 56(2)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL

Sanjay Kumar Mahadeo Patil, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8496/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Bijayananda Prusethsanjaykumar Mahadeo Patil, Flat No.502, A Wing, Shivparvati Chs Ltd., Rsa 54, Mhada Layout, Mahavir Nagar, Kandivali (W), Mumbai – 400067 ............... Appellant Pan: Adlpp0237C

For Appellant: Ms. Krupa Shah, Adv. (virtually appeared)For Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 250Section 253(3)

compliance with notices, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without adjudicating the grounds raised by the assessee on merits, as required under section 250(6) of the Act. In CIT v/s Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), reported in [2016] 69 taxmann.com 407 (Bombay), the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court held

Janardan Namdev Gawali, Ambarnath vs. ITO Ward2(2) Kalyan, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8245/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawaljanardan Namdev Gawali Palegaon, Anandnagar, Ambarnath Thane, Kalyan - Dombivali Maharashtra - 421502 ............... Appellant Pan: Apgpg9048B V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), J-63/12 Addl., Murbad Rani Mansion ……………… Respondent Industrial Area Midc, 2Nd Floor Murbad Road Kalyan, Kalyan – Dombivali Maharashtra – 421301 Assessee By : Ms. Mamta Watwani Revenue By : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Ms. Mamta WatwaniFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250

compliance with notices, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without adjudicating the grounds raised by the assessee on merits, as required under section 250(6) of the Act. In CIT v/s Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), reported in [2016] 69 taxmann.com 407 (Bombay), the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court held

Navgrahaa Jewels Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4786/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarnavgrahaa Jewels Private Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner 7(1)(1), Unit No.341 & 342, Pragati Mumbai Industrial Esrate, N. M. Joshi Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai-400020 Marg, Lower Parel East, Mumbai-400011 Pan: Aaecn0220G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Dharan Gandhi, Adv., Ms. Vinita Nara Adv Respondent By : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/01/2026 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee (Jm): The Instant Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi [For Brevity ‘The Ld. Cit(A)], Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (For Brevity ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2013-14, Date Of Order 11.11.2024. The Impugned Order Emanated From The Order Of The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi, Adv., Ms. Vinita Nara AdvFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, SR DR
Section 14Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 14bSection 250Section 69C

September 18, 2024; and October 7, 2024), seeking only adjournments without evidence. Under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, and Section 250(6), CIT(A) can dismiss appeals for non-compliance. Ground 2: Order Passed by AO is Devoid of Merit, Arbitrary, Uncalled

Sh. Ramesh Yadav, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward-3(5), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2447/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year 2014-15 Shri Ramesh Yadav, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 236, Sector-6, Manesar Imt, Ward-3(5), Gurgaon, Haryana Gurgaon Pan No. Acbpy6351M Pin: 122016 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. & SakshamFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

assessee are against order dated 06.03.2018 of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Gurgaon [hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT(A)] under Section 250(6) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) arising out of assessment order dated 26.12.2016 of Learned Assessing Officer/Income

Ram Lakhan Maurya, Pratapgarh vs. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department, Allahabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 82/ALLD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad29 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144BSection 147Section 250(6)

regards the various grounds of appeal. Thus, the order of learned CIT(A) has been passed without adhering to the provisions of section 250(6) of the I. T. Act. In view of the foregoing, the order of learned CIT(A) is set aside and the issue in dispute regarding

Mohammad Zaki, Allhabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Allahabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 81/ALLD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad29 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 147Section 250(6)

regards the various grounds of appeal. Thus, the order of learned CIT(A) has been passed without adhering to the provisions of section 250(6) of the I. T. Act. In view of the foregoing, the order of learned CIT(A) is set aside and the issue in dispute regarding

Gaurav Yadav, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Gurgaon

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8355/DEL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 8355/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2020-21 Gaurav Yadav, Vs Income Tax Officer, H. No. 649, Sector-14, Ward-1(3), Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 Gurgaon, Haryna-122016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaypy4297R Assessee By: Sh. Peyush Prothi, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.01.2026 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2020-21 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1082687911(1) Dated 17.11.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Peyush Prothi, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250(6)

hearing mechanism could not be altogether ruled out. This is indeed coupled with the facts that there is also no effective compliance to section 250(6) of the Act in the impugned lower appellate order stipulating points of determination to be framed followed by a detailed adjudication thereupon

Rakesh Kumar, Delhi vs. DCIT/ACIT, Noida

In the result, the appeal of filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 6205/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year 2017-18 Rakesh Kumar, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 97, Rishav Vihar, Income Tax/Assistant Delhi-110092 Commissioner Of Income Pan No. Cpmpk8337K Tax, Dlc, Range-202, Central Circle-4, Noida Uttar Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Chawal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

assessee is against order dated 30.07.2025 of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Noida [hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT(A)] under Section 250(6) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) arising out of order dated 26.12.2019 of Learned Assessing Officer/Income Tax Officer

Mr. Ramesh Prabhakar Patil, Solapur vs. ITO Ward 2, Pandharpur

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

ITA 906/PUN/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pratik SandbhorFor Respondent: Shri Harish Bist (Through Virtual)
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

without himself going into the merits of the case. Thus, in our view, his order is in violation of the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. 10. On the above facts and in the circumstances of the case, we deem it fit, in the interest of justice

Raisoni Bagrecha Diamonds Private Limited, Jalgaon vs. Pne-C-(25)(1), Circle 1, Jalgaon

In the result, appeals of the assessee’s are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2549/PUN/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1971/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2015-16 R.B. Diamond House, Pne-C-1, Range-25, Opposite Manohar Sarees Circle-1, Jalgaon Baliram Peth, Jalgaon- Vs. 425001 Maharashtra Pan-Aaifr9130Q अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2549/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Raisoni Bagrecha Diamonds Pne-C-(25)(1), Circle- Private Limited, 1, Jalgaon 288, Baliram Peth, Jalgaon- Vs. 425001 Maharashtra Pan-Aadcr7439N अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By: Shri Sanjay T. Tupe Department By: Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing: 28-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 30-01-2026 आदेश / Order Per Dr. Manish Borad:- The Captioned Appeals By Two Different Assessee’S Are Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Dated 10.06.2025 & 14.08.2025 Pertaining To A.Y.

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay T. TupeFor Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 272A(1)(d)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण "ए "न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH, PUNE BEFORE Dr. MANISH BORAD

R B Diamond House, Jalgaon vs. Pne-C-1, Range -25, Circle -1, Jalgaon

In the result, appeals of the assessee’s are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1971/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1971/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2015-16 R.B. Diamond House, Pne-C-1, Range-25, Opposite Manohar Sarees Circle-1, Jalgaon Baliram Peth, Jalgaon- Vs. 425001 Maharashtra Pan-Aaifr9130Q अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2549/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Raisoni Bagrecha Diamonds Pne-C-(25)(1), Circle- Private Limited, 1, Jalgaon 288, Baliram Peth, Jalgaon- Vs. 425001 Maharashtra Pan-Aadcr7439N अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By: Shri Sanjay T. Tupe Department By: Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing: 28-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 30-01-2026 आदेश / Order Per Dr. Manish Borad:- The Captioned Appeals By Two Different Assessee’S Are Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Dated 10.06.2025 & 14.08.2025 Pertaining To A.Y.

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay T. TupeFor Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 272A(1)(d)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण "ए "न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH, PUNE BEFORE Dr. MANISH BORAD

Junnar Taluka Prathamik Shikshak Sahakari Pathsantha, Pune vs. Pne-W-59(1), Pune

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

ITA 1659/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1659/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2021-22 Junnar Taluka Prathamik Pne-W-59(1), Pune Shikshak Sahakari Patsanstha, Junner, Vs. Junnar-410502 Pune Maharashtra Pan-Aaaaj3324K अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By: None Department By: Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing: 28-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 02-02-2026 आदेश / Order Per Dr. Manish Borad:- This Appeal At The Instance Of Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Delhi Framed U/S 250 Of The Act, Dated 10.03.2025 For A.Y. 2021-22 Which Is Arising Out Of Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Dated 05.12.2022. 2. Registry Has Informed That There Is Delay Of 45 Days In Filing Of The Present Appeal. Application For Condonation Of Delay Alongwith Affidavit Is Placed On Record & On Going Through The Same, We Find That The Delay Is Not Intentional. Therefore In The Larger Interest Of Justice & Placing Reliance

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण "ए "न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH, PUNE BEFORE Dr. MANISH BORAD

Ritu Kalpesh Hiran, Satara vs. ITO, Satara

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1649/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151ASection 69A

determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision. Thus, in our view, his order is in violation of the provisions of section 250(6) of the 4 Act. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper

K Vinothkumar, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw-2(4), Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2776/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.S. Kaarthick, AdvFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

Ambika Prasad Mangaraj, Nayagarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(1) Bulandshahar, Bulandshahar

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8944/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2023-24 Ambika Prasad Mangaraj, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Building No.124, Taramani Ward-2(3)(1), Room No.102, Niwas, Near Pwd Office, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Nayagarh, Odisha-752069 Teachers Colony, Bulandshahar, Uttar Pradesh-203001 Pan: Aqypm2855M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year