← 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)

Balhanuman Commodities Private Limited, Kolkata vs. CIT(A), NFAC

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1129/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1129/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Balhanuman Commodities Pvt. Ltd..……………………....Appellant 309, B. B. Ganguly Street, W.B – 700012. [Pan: Aadcb6195K] Vs. Cit(A), Nfac………………..….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 17, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 23, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.03.2024 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 Of Income For The Relevant Assessment Year By Declaring An Income Of Rs.5590/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment. The Case Of The Assessee Was Assessed U/S 144 Of The Act & Statutory Notices Were Issued To The Assessee. But The Notices Could Not Be Served On The Assessee As The Business Of The Assessee Had Been Closed & There Was No Response To The Notices Issued. Due To The Non- Compliance, The Assessing Officer Compelled To Frame The Assessment Order U/S 144 Of The Act. On The Basis Of Material Available On Record, The Assessing Officer Added A Sum Of Rs.30,50,000/- Representing

Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)

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

Gurdayal Singh, Karnal vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4, Karnal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3692/DEL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2024AY 2012-2013
Section 144Section 250(6)Section 69A

course of assessment framed on 20.12.2019, without either framing points of determination or any detailed adjudication thereupon, as contemplated under section 250(6) of the Act. 4. Faced with this situation, Mr. Bansal vehemently argues that the assessee had indeed been afforded adequate opportunities in both the lower proceedings ... deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the learned CIT(A) for his fresh adjudication in compliance of section 250(6) with the rider that the taxpayer shall submit and prove all the relevant facts at his risk and responsibility; within three effective opportunities

Siddharth Pandarinath Bhadale, Pune vs. ITO, Pne-W-(58)(91), Pune

Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1465/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 55ASection 56(2)(x)

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

Rekha Rani Sur, West Bengal vs. Assistant Commissioner Circle 23(1)Hooghly, West Bengal

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1982/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1982/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rekha Rani Sur…….… ……….. ……..……………………....Appellant Swami Avayananda Lane, Bhadreswar, Hooghly – 712124. [Pan: Akaps2635P] Vs. Acit, Circle-23(1), Hooghly. ….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Arka Ghosh, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr & Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 20, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.07.2024 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 On 25.10.2017 For The Relevant Assessment Year By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.30,75,080/. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued. After Examining The Facts, The Assessing Officer Made The Additions Of Rs.4999440/- In Respect Of Cash Deposits Made During The Demonetization Period & Rs.5900720/- In Respect Of Disallowance Of Expenses Claimed By The Assessee.

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 250(6)

contended that the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) is devoid of merit which is contrary to the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. He, therefore, prayed before the Bench that it is necessary to remand the issue back to the file

Kondasamy Kanagaraj, Tiruppur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Tiruppur

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

ITA 2724/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2724/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. Lavanya, F.C.A HIFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 250(6)Section 69Section 69C

that the order of Ld. CIT(A) is ex-parte without discussing the issue on merits which is :- 3 -: not in consonance to section 250(6) of the Act. As per Section 250(6) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) is required to adjudicate the issue arising

Satinder Kaur Virdi, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 58(3), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 3957/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 3957/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Satinder Kaur Virdi, Vs Income Tax Officer, D-361, Top Floor, Anand Vihar, Ward-58(3), New Delhi-110092 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abhpv0883G Assessee By : Sh. V. Rajkumar, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Jaya Chaudhary, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Order Dated 09.07.2024 In Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1066519453(1), In Proceedings U/S 147 The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. V. Rajkumar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Jaya Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 250(6)

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

Sazid Ali Khan, Delhi vs. NFAC, Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 2603/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Pradip Kumar Kediaita No. 2603/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Sazid Ali Khan, Vs Nfac, 608, Navniti Apartment, Ip Delhi Extension, Patparganj, New Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adlpk3001B Assessee By : Sh. Aditi Ahmera, Proxy Counsel Revenue By : Ms. Jaya Chaudhary, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1062377576 (1) Dated 11.03.2024, In Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Aditi Ahmera, Proxy CounselFor Respondent: Ms. Jaya Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

learned CIT(A)/NFAC has not dealt with the assessee’s relevant facts on merits as well so as to comply with section 250(6) of the Act requiring him to frame points of determination followed by a detailed adjudication thereof. Be that

Prem Pal Bhayana, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-44(7), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 642/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Prem Pal Bhayana Vs Ito, L-20, Udyog Vihar, Rohtak Ward-44(7), Road, New Delhi-110087. New Delhi. Pan-Aeqpb1829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. & Shri Aman Garg, Ca Respondent By Ms. Jyoti Verma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.12.2024 Order

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 150(1)Section 150(2)Section 151(1)Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “F” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI ANUBHAV

Shubahm Bansal, Delhi vs. Ward 58(7), Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 3830/DEL/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Pradip Kumar Kediaita No. 3830/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Shubham Bansal, Vs Income Tax Officer, 5/379, Mohalla Maharam Shahdara, Ward-58(7), New Delhi-110032 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Cekpb1161D Assessee By : Sh. Sameer, Ar Revenue By : Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1057415817 (1) Dated 26.10.2023, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Sameer, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69A

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

ITO, Ward-1, Palanpur vs. Gelot Agri Exports, Palanpur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, while that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 225/AHD/2024[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Dec 2024

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2018-19 Ito, Ward-1 Vs. Gelot Agri Exports Palanpur, Banaskantha At 13, Aditya Complex Gujarat. Opp: Jalaram Temple Deesa 385 535. Pan : Aapfg 5455 N Assessment Year : 2018-19 Gelot Agri Exports Vs. Ito, Ward-1 At 13, Aditya Complex Palanpur, Banaskantha Opp: Jalaram Temple Gujarat. Deesa 385 535. Pan : Aapfg 5455 N

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 270A(8)Section 40

Revenue and the assessee against the order passed by the ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) ITA No.1739 and 225/Ahd/2024 2 pertaining Assessment Year 2018-19 confirming the levy of penalty

Gelot Agri Exports, Deesa vs. ITO WD 1 Palanpur, Banaskantha

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, while that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1739/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2018-19 Ito, Ward-1 Vs. Gelot Agri Exports Palanpur, Banaskantha At 13, Aditya Complex Gujarat. Opp: Jalaram Temple Deesa 385 535. Pan : Aapfg 5455 N Assessment Year : 2018-19 Gelot Agri Exports Vs. Ito, Ward-1 At 13, Aditya Complex Palanpur, Banaskantha Opp: Jalaram Temple Gujarat. Deesa 385 535. Pan : Aapfg 5455 N

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 270A(8)Section 40

Revenue and the assessee against the order passed by the ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) ITA No.1739 and 225/Ahd/2024 2 pertaining Assessment Year 2018-19 confirming the levy of penalty

Burst Healthcare Private Limited, Pune Maharashtra vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1509/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 80

failed to consider the detailed submissions and documentary evidence provided by the Appellant, violating the principles of natural Justice and Section 250(6) of the Act. *Legal Precedents Ignored* The CIT(A) ignored various judicial precedents that emphasize the importance of addressing the issues on merit and not dismissing appeals

Weldon Polymers Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-20, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 841/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumar[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Weldon Polymers Pvt.Ltd. Vs Acit, Dsm, 609-610, Dlf Tower Central Circle-20, Shivaji Marg, Moti Nagar, New Delhi. New Delhi-110015. Pan-Aaacw6549H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Tarun Chanana, Adv. & Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Harpreet Kaun Hansra, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 19.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2024 Order

Section 147Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “F” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI VIMAL

DCIT, Circle-21(1), New Delhi vs. Ranjitgarh Finance Co. P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7555/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumar[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Dcit Vs Ranjitgarh Finance Co.P.Ltd. Circle-21(1) Lp-11 C Pitampura New Delhi. New Delhi-110034. Pan-Aabcr8108C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Mukesh Sukhija, Adv. Date Of Hearing 19.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2024 Order Per Pradip Kumar Kedia, Am : The Instant Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue Seeking To Assail The First Appellate Order Dated 04.09.2018 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(A)-7, New Delhi [“Ld.Pr. Cit”] U/S 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2016 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2014- 15. 2. When The Matter Was Called For Hearing, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That As Per The Instruction Of The Client, The Assessee Is Opting For The Ongoing “The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas (Dtvsv) Scheme, 2024”. The Learned Counsel Thus Submitted That The Assessee Does Not Seek To Pursue The Said Appeal Owing To Exercise Of Option For Availing Dtvsv Scheme & Consequently Requested That The Written Application For Withdrawal Of Appeal May Please Be Granted.

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “F” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI VIMAL

Shri Ram Shakya, Etawah vs. Itoward-1(4), Kanpur

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

ITA 597/LKW/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

I.T.A. No.597/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2011-12 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘SMC’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI ANADEE

Ms Ekom Exim Private Limited, Sco-11, Sector-4D, Battan Lal Road, Gt Road, Mandi Gobindgarh, Fatehgarh Sahib vs. The Jurisdictional Officer ACIT, DCIT Centre Circle Patiala, Punjab

In the result, impugned order is set aside as and by way of remand on denovo basis

ITA 425/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Dt. 05/10/2023 Passed In 1St Appeal No. 10596/Rot/Patiala/It/Cit(A)-5 Ldh/2019-20 Pased Under Section 250(6) Of The Act By Ld. Cit(A) Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Relevant A.Y. Is 2017-18 & The Corresponding Previous Year Period Is From 01/04/2016 To 31/03/2017. 2. The Assessee Being Aggrieved By The Assessment Order Dt. 30/12/2019 Under Section 144 R.W.S 147 Of Ld. Ao Ward-2, Mandi, Govindgarh, Head Quarter, Sirhind Wherein Total Income Of The Assessee Was Computed As Rs.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 11Section 144Section 246ASection 250(6)Section 253Section 68

before this Tribunal. The assessee is aggrieved by the order dt. 05/10/2023 passed in 1st Appeal No. 10596/ROT/Patiala/IT/CIT(A)-5 Ldh/2019-20 pased under section 250(6) of the Act by Ld. CIT(A) which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. The relevant

Atam Parkash, Patiala vs. CIT(Appeals), Patiala

ITA 412/CHANDI/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dev Ahuja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 144Section 246ASection 250(6)Section 253Section 271

assessee is aggrieved by the order dt. 03/08/2017 passed by CIT(A), Patiala in 1st Appeal No. 117/IT/CIT(A)/PTA/14-15 under section 250(6) of the Act which is hereinafter referred as “impugned order”. The relevant A.Y. is 2011-12 and the corresponding previous year period is from 01/04/2010

Sandvik Asia Employees Co-Op Credit Society Ltd, Pune vs. Ward 8(3), Pune

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

ITA 2207/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2206 & 2207/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

that ld.CIT(A)/NFAC has not decided the appeal on merits as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. As per the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, the order of the CIT(A) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination ... decision thereon and the reason for the decision. However, the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC has not followed the provisions of section 250(6) of the I.T. Act. During the course of present hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee narrated the facts which prevented the assessee from representing its case before

Sandvik Asia Employees Co-Op Credit Society Limited, Pune vs. ITO Ward 8(3) Pune, Pune

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

ITA 2206/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2206 & 2207/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

that ld.CIT(A)/NFAC has not decided the appeal on merits as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. As per the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, the order of the CIT(A) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination ... decision thereon and the reason for the decision. However, the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC has not followed the provisions of section 250(6) of the I.T. Act. During the course of present hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee narrated the facts which prevented the assessee from representing its case before

Shubhamangal Sadi Depo, Hingoli vs. Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Unit

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

ITA 1652/PUN/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 147Section 250Section 44ASection 68Section 69

observe that the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC has also not decided the alleged cash deposit issue on merit as contemplated under the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. Considering the facts in entirety and in the interest of principles of natural justice, without dwelling into merits of the issue