← 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)

Satyajeet Gajanan Patil, Kolhapur vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Kolhapur

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

ITA 2479/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271ASection 69A

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

Pashankar Auto Works Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(5), Pune

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

ITA 1773/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. VazeFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 194Section 250(6)

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

Jagdish Parshad Jain, Panipat vs. DCIT Central Circle Karnal, Karnal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3300/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Inamul Haq S/O Sh. Mohd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Yamin, Vill.Megh Chhappar, Ward-2. Ambalaa Road, Saharanpur (U.P) Saharanpur Pan: Aaiph2840K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250(6)Section 50CSection 54Section 54FSection 54F(4)

assessee is against order dated 29.03.2016 of Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-, Muzaffarnagar (hereinafter referred as “the Ld. CIT(A)”) under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( hereinafter referred as “the Act”) arising out of assessment order dated 17.03.2015 of the Learned Assessing Officer/The Income

Jamuna Shankar Sharma, Guna vs. ITO, Guna

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

ITA 45/AGR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 139Section 14Section 142(1)Section 144Section 154Section 250(6)

verification or enquiry in respect of the submissions made and also has not passed the order in accordance with the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, the appellate order passed by the learned NFAC dated 17.01.2023 is bad in law, liable to be set aside

The Muzaffarpur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd, Muzaffarpur vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Muzffarpur, Muzaffarpur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 280/PAT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna15 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.280/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Muzaffarpur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd..…....Appellant Sadar Hospital Road, Muzaffarpur, Bihar-842001. [Pan: Aabat7831Q] Vs. Dcit, Circle-2, Muzaffarpur…………….............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sanjeev Anwar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 08, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 15, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.08.2023 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. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Cooperative Society & Engaged In Banking Business. For The Assessment Year 2016-17, The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 15.10.2016 By Showing A Total Income Of Rs.65,05,270/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny In Terms Of Guidelines Issued By The Cbdt Vide Instruction No.5/2007. Accordingly, Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued To The Assessee & In Response To The Said Notices, No One Turned Up Before The Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer Therefore Passed An Order U/S 144 By Making Certain Additions In Following Manner:

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 14ASection 250Section 250(6)

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

Anjani Kumar @ Anjani Kumar Singh, Patna vs. ITO Ward-6(5), Patna

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 12/PAT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna15 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.12/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Anjani Kumar @ Anjani Kumar Singh……………....…....Appellant Jalalpur, Sahay Nagar, Rupaspur, Patna-801506. [Pan: Atnpk6813F] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(5), Patna..…..…………….............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 09, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 15, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 14.10.2022 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 Notice Of Hearing & The Tribunal Cannot Keep This Appeal Pending For Indefinite Time Due To Non-Representation. Therefore, We Proceed To Decide The Appeal With The Help Of Ld. Dr & Also Considering The Material Available On Record.

Section 250Section 250(6)

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

Shri Krishan Kumar Jalan, Bangalore vs. ITO, W-1, Sirsa

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 933/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri P.K. Prasad, Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 253Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, चण्डीगढ़ न्यायपीठ“ए”, चण्डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: HYBRID

M/S. Mono Steel (India) Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 285/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Balwani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 270ASection 80

passed ex-parte order in violation of principles of natural justice, as he had not passed order as per mandate of provisions of Section 250(6), one more opportunity should be granted to assessee to plead it’s case before Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the matter

M/S. Mono Steel (India) Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 284/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Balwani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 270ASection 80

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Ashok Bhimraj Bhange, Ahmednagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 2488/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2488/Pun/2024 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Ashok Bhimraj Bhange, Vs Ito, Ward-1, At Post Kolhar Bk, Tal. Rahata, Ahmednagar Dist. Ahmednagar-413716 Pan-Bcrpb2153D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prasad Bhandari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vishal A Makawane
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण "एस एम सी" न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "SMC" BENCH, PUNE BEFORE Dr

Naim Yusuf Kureshi, Satara vs. ITO, Ward-3, Satara

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

ITA 2226/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2226/Pun/2024 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Naim Yusuf Kureshi, Ito Ward-3, Satara Kalekar Colony, Subhashnagar, Koregaon, Vs. Tal-Koregaon, Dist-Satara- 415501 Pan-Etupk6994J अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri V.F. MominFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep P. Sathe, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 220Section 250Section 271Section 69Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण "ए" न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH, PUNE BEFORE Dr. MANISH BORAD

Aditya Sharma, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-19, New Delhi

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

ITA 3616/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. M. Balaganesh (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sourav Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S.K. Jadhav, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 92C

appeal on merits. The ld. CIT(A) is required and obligated to pass appellate 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. Reference is drawn to provisions of Section 250 ... 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

Sonu Kumar, Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) Income Tax Department, Vikas Bhawan

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 124/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 124/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Veecon Media & Broadcasting Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit, 60-A, Sainik Farms C-5, Lane, Centra, Circle-25(1), Khanpur, New Delhi-110062 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcv0152C Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Ramesh Chand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.05.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2019-20, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024–25/1066874575(1) Dated 22.07.2024, In Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Ramesh Chand, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. S

Ap Securitas Private Limited, Janakpuri vs. DCIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3268/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 3268/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Bharat Kumar Varma, Vs Income Tax Officer, H. No. 13, Wajidpur, Sector-63, Ward-5(1)(2), Gautam Budh Nagar, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida-201307 Noida-201307 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Asvpv3051H Assessee By: Sh. Abhishek Jain, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.07.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18, Arises Against The Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Mumbai’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1074689020(1) Dated 19.03.2025, In Proceedings U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Abhishek Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 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

Rameshwar Prasad, Patna vs. ACIT Circle - 2 (1), Begusarai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 265/PAT/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.265/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Rameshwar Prasad………….. ………...…..…………………....Appellant Purendu Nagar, Near Shiv Mandir, Phulwarisharif, Patna-851117. [Pan: Afdpp7901H] Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Begusarai…………….............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri D. V. Pathy, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 08, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 13, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.07.2023 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. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Original Return Of The Assessee Was Filed On 31.03.2011 Showing A Total Income Of Rs.12,65,190/-. Subsequently, The Assessment Proceedings For The Year Under Consideration Was Reopened By Issuing A Notice U/S 148 Of The Act With The Prior Approval Of The Pcit, Bhagalpur. In Response To The Notice U/S 148 Of The Act, The Assessee Failed To Make Any Compliance In Respect Of The Notices Issued Time To Time By The Assessing Officer. Since, The Assessee Remained Non-Cooperative, The Assessing Officer Framed Assessment Order U/S 144 Of The Act By Making An Addition Of

Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

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

Tirupati Enterprise, Silvassa vs. ITO, Ward Silvassa, Silvassa

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

ITA 1064/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1064/Srt/2024 (Ay 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Tirupati Enterprise Income Tax Officer, Ward- 24, Centre Point, Vapi-Silvassa Silvassa, Tokarkhada, बनाम Road (Amli), Silvassa-396 230, Samarvarni, Silvassa, Dadra & Vs Dadra & Nagar Haveli (Ut) Nagar Haveli & Daman & [Pan : Aadft 9754 B] Diu-396 230 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 254(1)

case and materials available on record. The order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is not in consonance with the mandate of Section 250(6) of the Act. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that both the lower authorities have passed the order for want of evidence. Therefore

Saroj Tilakraj Juneja, Surat vs. DCIT Circle-1(1)(1), Surat

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

ITA 1048/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1048/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Saroj Tilakraj Juneja, Vs. The Dcit, 3, Subhas Nagar Society, Ghod Dod Road, Circle - 1(1)(1), Surat - 395007 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abbpj5634M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Kiran K. Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/01/2025

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253(3)Section 253(5)Section 69

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT

Ithaca Estates Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-(3)(1)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 1014/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Sri Ganesh Raj, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, D.R
Section 250(6)

passed an ex-parte order without dealing with the merits of the case in terms of the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. It is settled position of law that the ld. CIT(A) is duty bound to dispose the merits of the case as held

Mafatlal Bhagraj Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6113/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri D.C. JainFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Agarwal (Sr. DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

parte order, he denied the assessee to canvass his case properly. His action is also not in accordance with the provisions of Section 250(6) of the 1961 Act, wherein CIT(A) is obligated to state points for determination in appeal before him, the decision thereon and the reasons

M/S Karam Chand Sweets, Zira vs. DCIT, CC-2, Ludhiana

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 601/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: This Hon'Ble Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved

For Appellant: None ( Application Rejected)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 133A(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250(6)Section 253

Tribunal. The assessee is aggrieved by the order dated 12.07.2023 passed in Appeal No.10779/2018-19/IT/CIT(A)-5/Ldh/2019-20 by ld. CIT(A) under Section 250(6) of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. The relevant assessment year ITA 601/CHD/2023 ... aforesaid “Impugned Assessment Order” prefers first appeal under Section 246A of the Act before ld. CIT(A) who by “impugned order” under Section 250(6) of the Act has dismissed the same. The ld. CIT(A) in sum and substance has dismissed the appeal as despite issuance of about