“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)

Neelam Dhyani, Noida vs. ITO Ward 54(1), Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2351/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 2351/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ankit Kumar Gupta, Vs Income Tax Officer, D-14, G-1, East Jyoti Nagar, Ward-59(5), Shahdara, Delhi-110093 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Arqpg8834M Assessee By: Sh. Adil Mehmood, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.06.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1042628048(1) Dated 07.04.2022, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Adil Mehmood, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 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

Laxmikant Gurappa Tyapi, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Belagavi

ITA 7/PAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji04 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 007/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Laxmikant Gurappa Tyapi 302, Maruthi Devara Gudi Oni, Artagal, Belgaum, Dist. Belgaum Pan : Aeupt2660K . . . . . . . Applicant V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Belgaum. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr S Manikandan [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 03/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04/03/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee Impugns Din & Order Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068116925(1) Dt. 29/08/2024 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac’ Hereinafter] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 18/11/2022 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By The National Faceless E- Asstt Centre [‘Ld. Ao’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2017- 18 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr S Manikandan [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

then deal with the dispute on merits de-novo in accordance with applicable law and pass a speaking order in terms of section 250(6) of the Act. 7. The appeal in result stands allowed for statistical purposes. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 the order pronounced

The Gokak Taluka Agricultural Produced Co-Op Marketing Society Ltd, Gokak vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Belgaum

ITA 274/PAN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji04 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 274/Pan/2024 Assessment Year : 2020-21 The Gokak Taluka Agricultural Produced Co-Op. Marketing Society Ltd. Apmc Yard, Gokak, Dist. Belgaum Pan : Aaajt1462H . . . . . . . Applicant V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Belgaum. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr S Gadadi [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr S Manikandan [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 03/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04/03/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee Impugns Din & Order Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1065710654(1) Dt. 18/06/2024 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac’ Hereinafter] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 22/09/2022 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By The National Faceless E-Asstt Centre [‘Ld. Ao’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2020-21 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: Mr S Gadadi [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr S Manikandan [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

NFAC was inviably required to state subject matter or point of determination, its decision thereon and clear reasons therefore in terms of section 250(6) of the Act. A plain reading of section 250 of the Act reveals that, it is incumbent upon the Ld. NFAC to make necessary enquiries

Ranjana Naik Mirsangkar, Begim vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1), Panaji

ITA 145/PAN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji04 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 145/Pan/2024 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Ranjana Naik Mirsangkar H.No. 614, Walkeshwar Wada, Betim, Bardez, North Goa, Goa Pan : Aldpn9981B . . . . . . . Applicant V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr M Satish [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 25/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04/03/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee Impugns Din & Order Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1064227170(1) Dt. 19/04/2024 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac’ Hereinafter] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 16/03/2023 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act By The National Faceless E-Asstt Centre [‘Ld. Ao’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2015-16 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: Mr Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)

NFAC is required to state point of determination, decision thereon and reasons therefore in terms of section 250(6) of the Act. A plain reading of above section reveals that, it was incumbent upon Ld. NFAC to make necessary enquiries before passing an order and while doing so it necessitates

Durgaraja Veerarouthula, Kakinada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Kakinada

In the result, appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 523/VIZ/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Mar 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Balakrishnan S.

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, DR

Section 250Section 250(6)

merits of the case and disposed of by referring to the various aspects of merits. He, therefore, submits that the provisions under section 250 (6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) are not complied with. 3. Though the learned DR vehemently relied on the orders ... such notices nor did the assessee produce any documents, explanation and evidence to substantiate the grounds raised. 5. Requirement of law under section 250(6) of the Act is that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points

Konthala Rajendra Prasad, Anakapalli vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Anakapalle

In the result, appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 283/VIZ/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Mar 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.283/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri P.C.Rao, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, LD.DR

Section 250Section 250(6)

merits of the case and disposed of by referring to the various aspects of merits. He, therefore, submits that the provisions under section 250 (6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) are not complied with. 5 Though the learned DR vehemently relied on the orders ... such notices nor did the assessee produce any documents, explanation and evidence to substantiate the grounds raised. 7. Requirement of law under section 250 (6) of the Act is that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points

Durga Kailas Gupta, Malegaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Malegaon

In the result, all four the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2436/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2425, 2427, 2435 & 2436/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2013-14 & 2013-14 Durga Kailas Gupta, V The Income Tax Officer, New Janta Building, S G.No.425, P.No.5, Chalisgaon Phata, Maharashtra – 423203. Pan: Alapg0234F Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde - Dr Date Of Hearing 19/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/03/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Manish Borad, Am: This Bunch Of Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; For The Assessment Years Referred Above. Assessee Has Filed Identical Grounds For All These Years. Since The Issue Involved Is Common, Therefore, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Decided By This Common Order.

Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

occasions, then the ld.CIT(A) shall proceed to decide in accordance ITA Nos.2425, 2427, 2435 & 2436/PUN/2024 [A] with law as contemplated in section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to seek adjournment unless otherwise required. Accordingly, effective grounds of appeals

Durga Kailas Gupta, Malegaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Malegaon

In the result, all four the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2435/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

Durga Kailas Gupta, Malegaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Malegaon

In the result, all four the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2427/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

Durga Kailas Gupta, Malegaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Malegaon

In the result, all four the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2425/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

Arjun Bhairu Bhangire, Pune vs. ITO Ward 14, Pune

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessees’

ITA 1444/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P.Murkunde

Section 250Section 250(6)Section 253(5)

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

Abhimayu Arjun Bhangire, Pune vs. ITO 14(1), Pune

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessees’

ITA 1443/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P.Murkunde

Section 250Section 250(6)Section 253(5)

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

Abhimayu Arjun Bhangire, Pune vs. ITO 14(1), Pune

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessees’

ITA 1442/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P.Murkunde

Section 250Section 250(6)Section 253(5)

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

Bhargava Swaroop Chitturi, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1335/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.1335/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19)

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Sachin Kumar, DR

Section 250Section 250(6)

merits of the case and disposed of by referring to the various aspects of merits. He, therefore, submits that the provisions under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) are not complied with. 3. Though the learned DR vehemently relied on the orders ... such notices nor did the assessee produce any documents, explanation and evidence to substantiate the grounds raised. 5. Requirement of law under section 250 (6) of the Act is that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points

Sadashiv B Dalawai, Raibag vs. Income Tax Department, Assessment Unit, Delhi

ITA 307/PAN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji03 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 307/Pan/2024 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Sadashiv B Dalawai At Post Shiragur Tal.: Raibag, Dist. Belgaum Pan : Bdrpd7066A . . . . . . . Applicant V/S Income Tax Officer/Itd, Belgaum/New Delhi. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mrs Viramma Muranal [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr M Satish [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 25/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 03/03/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee Impugns Din & Order Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/10703226271(1) Dt. 13/11/2024 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac’ Hereinafter] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 21/09/2022 Passed U/S 144 Of The Act By The National Faceless E-Asstt Centre [‘Ld. Ao’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2020-21[‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: Mrs Viramma Muranal [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 246ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 68Section 80G

institution with a direction deal therewith de-novo in accordance with applicable law and pass a speaking order in terms of section 250(6) of the Act. 5. The appeal in result stands allowed for statistical purposes. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 the order pronounced

Ravinder Manojkumar Gupta, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer, Lucknow

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

ITA 647/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow03 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshraravinder Manojkumar Gupta V. Income Tax Officer 12, Draupadi Vihar, Aayakar Bhawan, Ashok Laxmanpuri, Lucknow-226001. Marg, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Aegpg4343C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 11 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

going into the merits of the case was erroneous on the part of the Ld. CIT(A) having regard to provisions contained under section 250(6) of the Act. Further, on perusal of records, it is found that the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order without providing reasonable opportunity

Kavita Agarwal, Kanpur vs. ITO Ward-2(2)(1), Kanpur

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

ITA 567/LKW/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow03 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshrakavita Agarwal V. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(2)(1) Flat No.204-2A/209 Raman Dham Apartment Azad Nagar- 15/295, Vaibhav Bhawan, Kanpur-208002. Civil Lines-Kanpur- 208001. Pan:Asfpa7273C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl

Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69B

pass a speaking order on merits of the case. The failure of the Ld. CIT(A) to ensure compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act, in both letter and spirit, was erroneous on his part. Further, the Assessing Officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A) failed to provide

Laxmi Siddharth Transmissions LLP, Zizamabad vs. ACIT., Circle-1, Nizamabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1247/HYD/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Mar 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri A. Harish, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr. AR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 203ASection 205Section 220(2)

1 ITA.No.1247/Hyd./2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE

Gunavantraya, Gulbarga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Gulbarga

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

ITA 1866/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. Lakshmi, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Venkatesh V., D.R

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

/NFAC has not adjudicated the issue on merits and dismissed the appeal in limine for non prosecution. As contemplated under section 250(6) of the Act, the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC required to frame the points for Gunavantraya, Gulbarga Page 6 of 6 determination followed by a detailed discussion/ reason

Mansharam Kaushal, Indore vs. Assessing Officer, Income Tax

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 430/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

Kaushal ITA No. 430/Ind/2024 - AY 2018-19 2. Heard the learned Representatives of both sides and the orders of lower-authorities perused. 3. Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provides “The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state ... first-appeal although due to non-prosecution by assessee on the dates of hearing but still without complying with the mandate of section 250(6). Therefore, the impugned first appeal-order passed by Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be set aside and the matter is fit for restoring