← 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)

Shafqat Ullah Farooqui, Bhopal vs. CIT(A), Income Tax Department

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 160/IND/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manish Boradshafqat Ullah Farooqui, Cit(A), A-24, Housing Board Colony, Nfac, Vs. Kohi-E-Fiza, Delhi Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabpf0615K Assessee By Shri Govind Rinwa, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.02.2025 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

allowed the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes directing the Ld. CIT(A) to pass a speaking order as contemplated in Section 250(6) of the Act. Even in the set aside proceedings the assessee again failed to furnish any details explaining the source of alleged cash deposited

Cupid Biotech Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1746/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President)

Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 271

purpose only for making fishing and roving inquiries. 3. I.d. NFAC erred in law and on facts in dismissing appeal violating provision of section 250(6) of the Act thus appellant prays that appeal may be set aside to CIT(A) / NFAC for adjudication cm merits. 4. Ld. NFAC erred

Popatrao Dashrathrao Suryawanshi, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 7 (3), Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2789/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Manoj JainFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT DR
Section 139Section 148Section 54B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY

Popatrao Dashrathrao Suryawanshi, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer 7(3), Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2788/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Manoj JainFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT DR
Section 139Section 148Section 54B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY

Suresh Gulabchand Oswal, Pune vs. ITO Ward 6(3), Pune

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

ITA 2493/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sarvesh KandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

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. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we deem it fit, in the interest of justice and fair play

Balasaheb Ganpat Jare, Beed vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2325/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 249Section 250Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY

Balasaheb Ganpat Jare, Beed vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2324/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 249Section 250Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY

Shri Martand Deosansthan Jejuri, Pune vs. ITO, Exemption Ward 1(2), Pune

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

ITA 1290/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sachin P Kumar –For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(d)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

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. 9.2 On the above facts and in the circumstances of the case, we deem it fit in the interest of justice

Oplus Steel and Power Pvt. Ltd.(Formerly Known As Swati Concast and Power Pvt. Ltd.), Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2550/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

complied with but he has not adjudicated the appeal on merit. In this respect, it is relevant to examine the provisions of section 250(6) which are reproduced as under: I.T.A. No.: 2550/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Oplus Steel and Power Pvt. Ltd. “250(6) – The order of the Commissioner ... appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision.” 6. Thus, section 250(6) of the Act casts a duty on the Ld. CIT(A) to pass an order in appeal which should state the points for determination

Dkt Trading Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward 12(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6569/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was 05.10.2024.

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

required to deal with the issue raised by the Assessee on merits in view of the provisions contained in Section 250(6) of the Act. [CIT (Central) Nagpur vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) 25/04/2016]. Further, during the course of hearing the Learned Authorised Representative

Jubiliant Enpro (P) Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 3197/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara&

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Ghai, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 153CSection 250(6)

instance 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. It is therefore

Sachin Maganlal Kotak, Bhuj-Kutch vs. ITO Ward-4, Gandhidham-Bhuj-2

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

ITA 233/RJT/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Feb 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 233 /Rjt/ 2024 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2016-17) Sachin Maganlal Kotak Ito, Ward-4, Gandhidham (Bhuj-2) New Wholesale Market Bhuj, Kutch – Vs. Income-Tax Office, Plot No. 32, Sector 370001 No.3, Near Iffco Colony, Gandhidham - 370201 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Amipk0858L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Fenil H. Maheta, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. (DR)
Section 147Section 250(6)

also note that Ld. CIT(A) has not passed the order as per the mandate of provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. That is, ld. CIT(A) did not pass order on merit based on the material available on record. Hence, we are of the view that

Nishi Kant, Patna vs. ITO, Ward-5(3), Patna

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

ITA 569/PAT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna27 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT
Section 250Section 250(6)

addition as made by the Assessing Officer without going into the merits of the case. 5. In this respect, we note that Section 250(6) casts a duty on Ld. CIT(A) to pass an order in appeal which should state the points for determination and a decision, as well

Jatin Dilipbhai Jani, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 892/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble

For Appellant: Revenue by Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR and Shri ashokkumar Suthar, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

against separate orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi of even dated i.e. 29.2.2024 under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short] for the assessment years

Jatin Dilipbhai Jani, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 891/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble

For Appellant: Revenue by Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR and Shri ashokkumar Suthar, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

against separate orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi of even dated i.e. 29.2.2024 under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short] for the assessment years

Omkara Impex and Merchandise LLP, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-3(3)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 809/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.809/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Omkara Impex & The Acit Merchandise Llp बनाम / Circle-3(3)(2) 301, Primate V/S. Ahmedabad – 380 015 Judges Bungalows Road Bodakdev Ahmedabad - 380 054 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaefo 2861 K (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kushal Fofaria, Ar Revenue By : Shri Waghe Prasadrao, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 27/02/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14/03/2024, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)"], Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao"] Under Section 147 R.W.S.144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15.

For Appellant: Shri Kushal Fofaria, ARFor Respondent: Shri Waghe Prasadrao, Sr.DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

stating the points for determination, the decision arrived at by the Ld. AO as well as the reasons for the decision, thereby violating section 250(6) of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.69

Sanjivani Cheritable Trust, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-7(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 406/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2012-13 Sanjivani Charitable Trust Vs. The Ito, Ward-7(2)(1) Tenament No.8 Ahmedabad. Isanpur Park Society Nr.Municipal Garden Naroda, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaits 6269 D (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Parin S. Shah, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri J.L. Bhatia, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11/02/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/02/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

For Respondent: Shri J.L. Bhatia, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 139Section 148Section 250(6)

ACCOUNTANT MEMBER The above appeal is filed by the assessee against order passed by the ld.Commissioner of Income (Appeals), Kolkata dated 04.01.2024 under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short] for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. The grounds raised

Blueview Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Odisha vs. I.T.O., Ward - 5(3), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2510/KOL/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Feb 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2510/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Blueview Agencies Pvt. Ltd. .……………………………………..….……….Appellant Lamtibahal, Brajrajnagar, Jharsuguda – 768216, Odisha. [Pan: Aadcb6386Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata….……..............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Madanappa Raghuvir, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 26, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 27, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 04.10.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return For The Assessment Year 2009-10 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,890/-. The Return Of The Assessee Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. The Assessee Derives Its Income From Share Dealing & Investments. The Assessing Officer On Examination Of The Balance Sheet & Profit & Loss Account Of The Assessee Found That Certain Expenses Which Were Disallowable Has Not Been Disallowed & Certain Income Did Not Disclose In Its Return. Therefore, The Assessing Officer Issued Notice U/S 148 & Subsequently, An Order U/S 147/143(3) Of The Act Was Passed By Determining Total Income Of Rs.27,650/-. Later On, The Ld. Cit, Kolkata-Ii Found That Requisite & Proper Enquiries Were Not Concluded Regarding The Identity

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 263

opportunity of being heard to the assessee and to decide the appeal on merits of the case which is necessary in terms of section 250(6) of the Act. 7. In terms of the above, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 27th February

Unitech Bright Steel Industries, Chennai vs. DCIT Non Corp Circle 8(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2818/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2818/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. M/S. Unitech Bright Steel Industries, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.113, Vanagaram Road, Income Tax, Ayyanambakkam, Non-Corporate Circle 8(1), Chennai – 600 095. Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri Vishwa Padmanabhan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. D. Babitha, JCIT
Section 250(6)

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

K 1369 Savandapur Paacs, Savundapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Erode

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

ITA 2801/CHNY/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Respondent: Mr. Ashwin D. Gowda
Section 143Section 250(6)Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

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