“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)

Shri Rohit Agarwal, Kanpur vs. Income Tax Officer- 3(3), Kanpur

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

ITA 352/LKW/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Rohit Agarwal V. Ito-3(3) Room No.108, 1St Floor Kanpur 49/52, General Ganj Radha Kripa, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Abapa2045C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 08 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31 01 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R

Section 154Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri

Shree Nirmal Gyan Pratishthan, Pune vs. The CIT (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 2760/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 143(1)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. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case enumerated above, we deem it fit in the interest of justice

Balasaheb Arjun Malawade, Solapur vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Solapur

In the result, the appeal(s) of the assessee for both the AYs 2018-19

ITA 1612/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 10(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 69ASection 69C

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

Balasaheb Arjun Malawade, Solapur vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Solapur

In the result, the appeal(s) of the assessee for both the AYs 2018-19

ITA 1608/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 10(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 69ASection 69C

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

M/S. Slk Software Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Special Range-6N, Bangalore

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

ITA 933/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)

Section 14A

Section 260 of the Act without adequately analyzing the crucial issues raised by the assessee. Such an approach is in clear violation of Section 250(6) of the Act, which explicitly mandates that an order passed by the CIT(A) must: Be in writing,  State the points for determination,  Provide ... 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

M/S. Slk Software Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Special Range-6, Bangalore

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

ITA 932/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)

Section 14A

Rajendra Agrawal, Biroli Bazar vs. ITO Ward 3(1) Purnea, Purnia

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 422/PAT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.422/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Rajendra Agrawal.……………….....…..…………………....Appellant New Sipahi Tola, Maranga Road, Bihar – 85301. [Pan: Aqhpa2439E] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Purnia....….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 27, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 30, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.02.2024 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. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 18 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause Which Was Beyond The Control Of The Assessee & The Delay Was Not Intentional. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case. 3. Brief Facts Of The Care Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Is Engaged In Farming Activities. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 249(2)Section 249(2)(c)Section 250

order of the ld. CIT(A) was passed without addressing the merit of the case which is contrary to the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act. In view of our above discussion, we condone the delay of 6 months (about 180 days) in filing the present appeal before

Dileep Kumar Sah, Siwan vs. ITO Ward2(3), Siwan

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 367/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.367/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dileep Kumar Sah……………….....…..…………………....Appellant Makhdoom Sarai, Turha Toli, Siwan, Bihar-841226. [Pan: Gvnps8999L] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(3), Siwan....….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 30, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.09.2023 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. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 134 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause For Such Delay. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Declared His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 At

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “PATNA BENCH, PATNA VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member and

Raj Kumar, Chapra vs. ITO, Ward- 2(2), Chapra

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 351/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.351/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Raj Kumar………………………….....…..…………………....Appellant Mohalla – Gudari Bazar, Bhagwan Bazar, Daulatganj, Chapra (Saran), Bihar-841301. [Pan: Cikpk8268A] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2), Chapra....….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 27, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 30, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 15.12.2023 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. No One Has Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee In Spite Of Serving Consecutive Notices Of Hearing & The Tribunal Cannot Keep This Appeal Pending For Indefinite Time Due To Non-Representation. Therefore, In The Absence Of Any Authorised Representative Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Decide The Appeal With The Help Of Ld. Dr & Also Considering The Material Available On Record. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Engaged In Fish Marketing. The Assessee Deposited A Sum Of

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “PATNA BENCH, PATNA VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member and

Jivachh Yadav, Saharsa, Bihar vs. CIT (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 338/PAT/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.338/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jivachh Yadav.………………..….....…..…………………....Appellant P.O & P.S Chandrayan, Nawhatta, Bihar-852201. [Pan: Ahfpy6939A] Vs. Cit(Appeal), Nfac, Delhi..….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Pankaj Kumar, Ca Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 30, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.09.2023 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. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 116 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause For Such Delay. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case. 3. Brief Facts Of The Care Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Is Engaged In Retail Business Of Fertilizer & Seeds. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Act For The Relevant Assessment

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 40A(3)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “PATNA BENCH, PATNA VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member and

Mr. Kallappa Shadakshari, Tiptur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tiptur

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

ITA 108/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Years: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri M.R Venkatesh Babu, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, JCIT

assessee. This omission raises concerns regarding the adequacy of judicial consideration in the decision-making process. 11.1 In this regard, the provisions of section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act emphasize the necessity of proper adjudication and reasoned findings. Considering the circumstances and in the interest of justice