← 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)

Naveen Soni, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward No 51(1), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8942/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 147Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.8942/Del/2025

Kifaytulla, Mewat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Gurgaon

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8915/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 144Section 250(6)

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

Axa Parenterals Limited, Up vs. Assessment Unit, Delhi

ITA 5040/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shris. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 270Section 37Section 37(1)

initiated. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who without following the procedure provided under section 250(6) of the Act upheld the assessment order and confirmed the addition so made. 3 AXA Parenterals Ltd. 5. Accordingly, aggrieved the impugned order

Trio Security and Intelligence Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, New Delhi

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

ITA 2960/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year 2021-22 Trio Security & Intelligence Vs. Assessing Officer, Private Limited, Central Circle-29, I-36, Lajpat Nagar-I, New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaact5352R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 36

appeal on following grounds: “Due to COVID 19 lockdown, PF & ESI were late deposited for the month from April to June 2020. Further section 250(6) & 250(6A) have not been complied with.” 3 5. Learned Authorised Representative for appellant/assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating

Atul Jentilal Gumasna, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer- Ward 1(2)(1), Rajkot

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 488/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.488 /Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year :2017-18 Atul Jentilal Gumasana, Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ Prabhat Industries, Gundala Road, Ward1(2)(1) Aaykar Bhawan, Race Gondal – 360311(Gujarat) Vs Course Ring Road, Rajkot – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aespg4868G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Samir Bhuptani Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : Heard 08/09/2025, Resfixed For Clarification On 22.01.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

note that order passed by ld. CIT(A) is a technical / summary dismissal, and not a reasoned appellate order on merits. Under section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the CIT(A) is mandatorily required to dispose of the appeal on merits, and pass a speaking order stating

Mr. Sinnappa Vanku Waghmode, Vatpali vs. ITO Ward 2, Pandharpur

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

ITA 2805/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2805/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Aakash Parakh and Shri Piyush Bafna
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 56Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL

Mr. Harivijay Pralhad Joshi, Pune vs. ITO Ward 3(3), Pune, Swargate

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2297/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2297/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Mr.Harivijay Prahlad Joshi, V The Income Tax 3 & 4, Megh Terrace 55 S Officer, Rambaug, Colony, Behind Ward-3(3), Pune. Chaitanya Health Club, Kothrud, Pune – 411038. Pan: Aappj9257M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Piyush Bafna Revenue By Smt Neha Thakkar – (Virtual) On Rotation Duty Date Of Hearing 22/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27/01/2026 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.2018-19 Dated 14.11.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 250(6)

order under section 250 of the Act without dealing with the specific grounds raised by the appellant, in violation of the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act and therefore, the impugned order, being non- speaking and devoid of proper reasoning, is bad in law and deserves

Sapana Dharmendra Shah, Malegaon vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Malegaon

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

ITA 2217/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2217/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sapana Dharmendra Shah, The Income Tax Officer, Khodiyar Bhavan, Ramsetu, Ward – 1, Malegaon Opp. Gayatri Mangal Karyala, Vs. Malegaon, Nashik-423203 Pan : Belps3009B अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanjeev Mutha (Virtual) Department By : Shri Manish Mehta Date Of Hearing : 20-01-2026 Date Of 27-01-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.08.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2018-19. 2. Briefly Stated The Facts Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Did Not File His Return Of Income For Ay 2018-19. Based On The Information Flagged By The Cbdt Through Insight Portal Under The Head “Nms Category”, It Was Found That During The Relevant Ay 2018-19, The Assessee Had Deposited Cash Of Rs.2,91,03,000/- In Her Bank Account Maintained With The Malegaon Merchant‟S Co-Op Bank Ltd. In The Name Of M/S Shree Kakaji Masale & Foods. Further, There Is Also Tds Made To The Tune Of Rs.1,524/- U/S 194A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) On „Interest Other Than „Interest On Securities‟ Against A Total Credit Of Rs.15,240/- By The Malegaon Merchant‟S Co-Op Bank Ltd., Which Has Not Been Disclosed To The Department. Since, The Assessee Had Not Filed Her Return Of Income, Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued On 05.04.2022 Which Was Duly Served Upon The Assessee. In Response Thereto, The Assessee Did Not File Her Return Of Income. Thereafter, Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act As Well As Show Cause Notice Were Issued, In Response To Which The Assessee Filed Certain

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Mutha (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 194ASection 69A

determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision. Thus, in our view, his order is in violation of the provisions of section 250(6) of 4 ITA No.2217/PUN/2025, AY 2018-19 the Act. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice

Kishor Jagannath Satav, Pune vs. ITO Ward 12(4), Pune

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

ITA 2196/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2196/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Kishor Jagannath Satav, The Income Tax Officer, Fadai Chowk, Nagar Road, Ward – 12(4), Pune Wagholi, Taluka-Haveli, Vs. Pune-412207 Pan : Etaps5826K अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Digambar Surwase Department By : Shri Manish Mehta Date Of Hearing : 20-01-2026 Date Of 27-01-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.01.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2014-15. 2. There Is A Delay Of 176 Days In Filing Of This Appeal Before The Tribunal For Which The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay. After Hearing Both The Sides, We Are Of The View That The Delay Is Attributable To The Sufficient Cause. We, Therefore, In Light Of The Decisions Of The Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 Itr 471 (Sc) & In The Case Of Inder Singh Vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Reported In 2025 Live Law (Sc) 339, Condone The Said Delay & Proceed To Decide The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Digambar SurwaseFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 250

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

Power Security Corp Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corp Ward 5(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal No

ITA 3509/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Ms.Varsha Sridhar, Advocate for Mr.Y.Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Mr.SBR Kumar Laghimsetti, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Power Security Corp Pvt Ltdq, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward 5(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal No

ITA 3508/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Ms.Varsha Sridhar, Advocate for Mr.Y.Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Mr.SBR Kumar Laghimsetti, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Power Security Corp Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corp Ward 5(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal No

ITA 3507/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Ms.Varsha Sridhar, Advocate for Mr.Y.Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Mr.SBR Kumar Laghimsetti, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Power Security Corp Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward 5(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal No

ITA 3506/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Ms.Varsha Sridhar, Advocate for Mr.Y.Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Mr.SBR Kumar Laghimsetti, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Alka Ashok Jagtap, Kalyan vs. Income Tax Officer, Kalyan

ITA 7524/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla& Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokaralka Ashok Jagtap Income Tax Office C-304, Regency Avenue Rani Mansion Syndicate, Murbad Road, Vs. Kalyan, Kalyan Kalyan West, Thane- 421301, Kalyan Pan/Gir No. Ahtpj7760J (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sunil Jain Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2026

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

conduct and absence of malafide intent. 8. The NFAC failed to deal with the judicial precedents specifically cited by the Appellant, violating section 250(6), which mandates a speaking order. 9. Additions is based on presumptive/preponderance of probability and third party statement, which does not arise penalty. 10. Penalty cannot

Diamond Tradecom Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 12(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 5850/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Diamond Tradecom Private Limited Ito,Ward-12(2)(1), Mumbai Shop No. 1, Shiv Ganga Chs Ltd., Vs Room No. 147B, Aayakar Bhavan, Ram Kuwar Thakur Road, M.K. Road, Dahisar (East), Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400068. [Pan No. Aaccd8131A] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(a)Section 151Section 250Section 250(6)Section 254(1)Section 69A

appellant without disposing off each ground of appeal on merits, without stating the reasons for determination and the decisions thereon in terms of section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act., 1961. The Appellant therefore request your honour to set aside the appellate order passed

Astom Multitrade Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-8, Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5369/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 5369/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2020-21 Aston Multitrade Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, Unit-612, 6Th Floor, Gd-Itl, Tower, Central Circle-8, Plot No. B-08, Netaji Subash Place, New Delhi Pitampura, Delhi-110034 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaoca2444H Assessee By : Sh. Pranav Yadav, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Amish S. Gupt, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2020-21, Arises Against The Cit(A)-24, New Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/M/250/2024–25/10736888555(1) Dated 25.02.2025, In Proceedings U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Pranav Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Amish S. Gupt, CIT-DR
Section 144Section 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

ITO Ward - 20(3), New Delhi vs. Quetzal Exim Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department of Revenue is allowed

ITA 717/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 250(6)Section 56Section 56(2)

Revenue is against order dated 08.11.2019 of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Delhi (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 28.12.2018 of the Learned Assessing Officer/Income

Vaijnath Gundappa Kshirsagar Through L/H. Shri Shivkumar Sadramappa Kshirsagar, Latur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1, Latur

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

ITA 2835/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JhaFor Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar
Section 144Section 148Section 154Section 54B

determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision. Thus, in our view, his order is in violation of the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has a strong case on merits and in the interest of justice

Prakash Reddy Vatti, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1806/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1806/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2015-2016 Vatti Prakash Reddy, The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad – 500 018. Ward-11(1), Hyderabad. Vs. Telangana. Pin – 500 017. Pan Aaspv8120C Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca A Vamseedhar राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms P Sumitha, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 15.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 23.01.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: CA A VamseedharFor Respondent: MS P Sumitha, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 144B(7)(vii)Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 151ASection 250(6)Section 69A

jurisdiction, violation of procedure, and failure to admit additional evidence under Rule 46A, thus rendering the appellate order non- speaking and violative of Section 250(6). 11. That in view of the appellant's detailed written submissions, documentary evidence, and prior return filings reflecting interest income on loans given

Jashvantiben Girishbhai Patel, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(2), Surat

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

ITA 274/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Surat22 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 147Section 234ASection 249(4)Section 250Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER