← 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)

Chand Khan, Sada Shiv Nagar vs. ITO Ward 1(2), City Center

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

ITA 109/AGR/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Jan 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 144Section 147

decided the appeal on merits.The ld. CIT(A) is required and obligated to pass order in compliance with the provisions of section 250(6), as ld CIT(A) is required to pass reasoned and speaking order on merits in accordance with law. The appellate order passed ... adjudicating issues arising in the appeal on merits, such order is not sustainable in the eyes of law keeping in view provisions of Section 250(6), and also higher appellate authorities will be deprived to see what weighed in the mind of the ld. CIT(A) while adjudicating appeal

Kamlesh Narang, Gwalior vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Gwalior

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

ITA 104/AGR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

appellate order passed by the learned NFAC dated 31.01.2024 is bad in law being passed not in accordance with the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act and also without disposing of the specific ground taken as per 'ground No. 5' against invoking of provisions of Section ... Assessee has also submitted that the appellate order of ld. CIT(Appeals) is not in consonance with 7 | P a g e section 250(6), as the CIT(A) has not adjudicated the legal ground raised by the assessee as to the invocation of section

ACIT, Circle - 1, Belagavi vs. Rohit Parasharam Patil, Belagavi

Accordingly. The grounds of appeal stands accordingly partly allowed

ITA 71/PAN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 071/Pan/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr Omkar Godbole [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Narendra Reddy [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 251Section 253(2)Section 69

NFAC however invariably is required to; (a) state point of determination, (b) its decision thereon and (c) clear reasons therefore in terms of section 250(6) of the Act. Au contraire in the instant case, we find that, the Ld. NFAC without 6 there being any verification either independently ... deal therewith de- novo after according three effective opportunities to the respondent assessee and pass a speaking order strictly in terms of section 250(6) of the Act. Needless to state that, on this remand the Ld. NFAC shall u/r 46A (supra) examine and decide either to admit or reject

Sri Ram Constructions, Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 6 (5), Patna

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

ITA 353/PAT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 145(3)Section 250Section 43C

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: “250(6) – The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state ... 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 and the decision as well as the reason

Dipesh Kumar (Formerly Anshu Kumar Barnwal), Gopalganj vs. ITO, Ward- 2 (4), Siwan

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 352/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

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

Nuruddin Alihusain Suratwala, Amatullah Manzil vs. ITO Ward 4(4) Nagpur, Bsnl Rttc Building

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 459/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: MS. Alfiya Rozie, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 250(6)Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH : NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.No.459/NAG./2024

Gimatex Kamgar Karmachari Pat Sanstha, Hinganghat Dist Wardha vs. ITO Ward-2, Wardha

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 218/NAG/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jan 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Ganesh Kakani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 250(6)Section 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH : NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.No.218/NAG./2024

Tirupati Minerals and Industries, Nagpur vs. DCIT Or ACIT - Deputy Or Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2(1), Nagpur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 204/NAG/2024[A.Y. 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Suren Duragkar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH : NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.Nos.202, 203

Tirupati Minerals and Industries, Nagpur vs. DCIT Or ACIT - Deputy Or Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2(1), Nagpur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 203/NAG/2024[A.Y. 2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Suren Duragkar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH : NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.Nos.202, 203

Tirupati Minerals and Industries, Nagpur vs. DCIT Or ACIT - Deputy Or Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2(1), Nagpur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 202/NAG/2024[A.Y. 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Suren Duragkar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH : NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.Nos.202, 203

Vnit Karmachari Sahakari Pat Sanstha, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 162/NAG/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Abhay Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 250(6)Section 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH : NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.No.162/NAG./2024

Lakshmi Tanuja Sugguna, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(5), Vijayawada

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

ITA 182/VIZ/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

principles of natural justice. 3. The disposal of the appeal in limine by the Ld. CIT(A) is against the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) overlooked the assessee's plea & statement of factswherein, the assessee submitted that there

Cheeran Jose Shunson, Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer, Guruvayoor

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

ITA 659/COCH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Keshav Dubey, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 Cheeran Jose Shunson .......... Appellant Cheeran House, Kottapadi Thrissur 680505 [Pan: Dpaps4426C] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward 1 & Tps, Guruvayoor, Thrissur Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.01.2025

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 50C

explanation offered during the course of proceedings before the CIT(A) nor passed the order on merits in terms of provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. The CIT(A) is expected to state the points for determination and the reasons for the decision. In the present case

M/S Brooks Laboratories Ltd., Baddi vs. ACIT, Circle, Panchkula

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 595/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek ardhan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)Section 80Section 80I

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “ए” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A

John Deere India Pvt. Ltd, Pune vs. CIT(A), Dehi

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

ITA 2477/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2477/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 John Deere India Pvt. Ltd., V The Commissioner Of Tower 14, Cyber City, S Income Tax(Appeals), Magarpatta City, Hadapsar, Nfac, Delhi. Pune – 411013. Pan: Aaacj4233B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/01/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2014-15; Dated 27.09.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1] The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Using Same Statement Of Facts & Findings For Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2014-15 Whereas The Statement Of Facts & Findings Are Not Relevant At All For Assessment Year 2014-15. Ita No.2477/Pun/2024 [A]

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 154Section 244ASection 246ASection 250Section 90

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

Arti Surana, Howrah vs. I.T.O., Ward - 47(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1405/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jan 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.1405/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Arti Surana………………………………..……………………….....Appellant Flat 5Cd, Block Iv, 5Th Floor, Vivek Vihar, Phase V, 493/C/A, G. T Road (South), Howrah-711101. [Pan: Akcpp7261L] Vs. Ito, Ward-47(1), Kolkata……….……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Rajkumar Agarwal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashutosh Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 15, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 27, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.04.2024 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 Is An Individual & Filed Her Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018-19 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.3,23,590/-. The Assessing Officer Found The Assessee Has Showed Income Under The Heads Of Short-Term Capital Gain & Other Sources. The Assessee Claimed Exemption Under The Head Of Short-Term Capital Gain From Transaction On Which Securities Transaction Tax Is Paid. However, During The Assessment Proceedings, The Department Received Information Which Indicated That The Assessee Had Traded In Shares Of Amm Ltd. & Eml Scrip Code (538653) To The

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69Section 69A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh

Kushal Bharat Realcon Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 2(3), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1099/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.1099/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kushal Bharat Realcon Pvt. Ltd………………………….....Appellant 16, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Kolkata – 700013. [Pan: Aahcm3213B] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(3), Kolkata……….……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddhharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashutosh Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 15, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 27, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.09.2023 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 192 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 & 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 Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.17,15,430/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny

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

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh

Kailash Baburao Suryawanshi, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2359/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Assessee in PersonFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 144Section 147Section 250(6)

assessee or not. Further, the ld. CIT(A) has also not dealt with the merits of the case in terms of provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. Further it is the settled position of law that CIT(A) is duty bound to dispose of the case on merits

International Hospital Ltd. (Before Amalgamation M/S Escorts Hospital and Research Centre Ltd), New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-8(3), New Delhi

The appeals are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 3390/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Ircon Soma Tollway (P) Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Ltd., B-4/45, Ground Floor, Income Tax, Range-4, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aabci4622C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri VK Aggarwal, AR & Shri HritikFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250(6)Section 263

respectively. ITA Nos. 1197/Del/2018 and 1198/Del/2018 are against orders dated 30.11.2017 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-35, New Delhi under Section 250(6) of the Act arising out of orders dated 08.06.2017 by Additional CIT, New Delhi under Section 143(3) r.w.s

Pawan Kumar Kasaudhan, L/H- Poonam Gupta, Sultanpur vs. ITO, Sultanpur

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

ITA 119/ALLD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad23 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

Section 139Section 145(3)Section 148

learned CIT(A) have passed ex-parte order qua the assessee. We are of the considered opinion, in view of provisions of section 250(6) of the I. T. Act, that learned CIT(A) had statutory duty to pass speaking order on merits of the various grounds of appeal raised