← 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)

Debabrata Paul, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 44(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2095/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2095/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Debabrata Paul……….… ……….. ……..……………………....Appellant 5, Bhupen Bose Avenue, Kolkata – 700004. [Pan: Aeypp0909B] Vs. Ito, Ward-44(1), Kolkata…. ….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Gautam Chatterjee, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Susanta Saha & Shri Rajat Datta, Sr. Drs, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 05, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 06, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.08.2024 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. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2020-21 By Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,83,955/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny In Order To Verify The Agricultural Income Claimed By The Assessee. A Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act Was Issued & In Response To That Notice, The Assessee Submitted His Reply Before The Assessing Officer. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Observed That Rs.44,80,000/- Was Received By The Assessee Which Was Claimed As Exempt Income Purportedly From Sale Of The Agricultural Land. The Assessing Officer However Treated This Amount As

Section 142(1)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 50C(2)

appeal was dismissed solely on the procedural ground without examining the merits of the case. We note that as per section 250(6) of the Act, every appeal should be decided on merit of the case. However, in the instant appeal

Sekhpara Manikore Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samith Ltd., Balurghat, South Dinajpur vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(1), Balurghat

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2081/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2081/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sekhpara Manikore Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samith Ltd…………………………..………Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocate Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Aagas8001C] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(4), Balurghat…. ….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Susanta Saha & Shri Rajat Datta, Sr. Drs, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 05, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 06, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.08.2024 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. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Non-Filer Of Income Tax Return For The Assessment Year 2018-19. It Was Found That The Assessee Made Cash Deposit Of Rs.1,57,66,762/- In The Malda District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. During The Financial Year 2017- 18. Since, The Source Of The Deposit Remained Unexplained, The Department Reopned The Case Of The Assessee By Issuing Notice U/S 148 Of The Act After Obtaining Prior Approval From The Competent Authority. In Response To The Notice U/S 148 Of The Act, The Assessee Filed Its Return

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

Tribunal arguing that the ld. CIT(A) passed the impugned order without considering the merit of the case which is a violation of section 250(6) of the Act which mandates of deciding appeals on merit. The assessee, therefore, requested before the Bench that another opportunity may be given

Avr Storage Tank Terminals Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1350/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Dipran Mukherjee, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 244ASection 250Section 32

made by the Ld. AO on this account is hereby, deleted” and the appeal is allowed. 6. In this respect, we note that Section 250(6) casts a duty on the Ld. CIT(A) to pass an order in appeal which should state the points for determination and a decision ... well as the reason for arriving at such decision. The provisions of section 250(6) are reproduced as under: “250(6) – The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason

Mr. Dhakshinamurthy Rajendran, Gudiyattam vs. ITO, Ward-2, Tiruvannamalai

ITA 2263/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'डी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'D' BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक

M/S Alliance Builders & Contractors Ltd., Kanpur vs. Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 126/LKW/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Alliance Builders & Asst.Commissioner Of V. Contractors Ltd Income Tax, Central Circle-2 C/O 24/4, The Mall, Kanpur. Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Allen Ganj, Kanpur. Pan:Aaeca8217A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28 11 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl
Section 115JSection 142Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 40aSection 80I

submissions made by the assessee in a summary manner without any discussion and without stating any reasons. This is a violation of Section 250(6) of the Act whereby the Ld. CIT(A) was duty bound to pass a speaking order. The Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue relied ... orders by the AO and the Ld. CIT(A). In view of foregoing, and having due regard for Section 250(6) of the act, we restore this issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the issue on merits in accordance with law after

R K Sipani Foundation, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer (E), Ward-2, Bangalore

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

ITA 1911/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Suresh Muthukrishnan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 250(6)

appeal without dealing with the merits of the case, which in our view is not the correct approach as per the provisions of section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. We also observe that the assessee was intending to file additional evidences before the CIT-(A) in terms

Bali Mauo, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward 2(1)(1) Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

ITA 2089/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 2089/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Bali Mauo, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O Ca Vaibhav Goel, 75, Navyug Ward-2(1)(1), Market, 1St Floor, Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad-201002 Uttar Pradesh-201001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Cjfpm3344B Assessee By : Sh. Vaibhav Goel, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Poojan Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14, Arises Against The Order Of Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 07.02.2024 In Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1060620285(1) In Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Vaibhav Goel, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Poojan Rana, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 68

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

Mohd Irshad, Ghaziabad vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1)(4), Cgo Complex

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3054/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 3054/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Mohd Irshad, Vs Income Tax Officer, Village Kallu Garhi, Dasna, Ward-2(1)(4), Ghaziabad, U.P.-201015 Ghaziabad, U.P.-201002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abwpi9575M Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.12.2024 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/250/2023-24/1065561376(1) Dated 29.08.2023, In Proceedings U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 250(6)Section 69

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

Vision India Colonizers Private Limited, Mohali vs. ITO, Ward 6(4), Mohali

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 90/CHANDI/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(iii)

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण,च"ीगढ़"ायपीठ “एस.एम. सी” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “SMC”, CHANDIGARH HEARD

Manas, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(4), Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1357/KOL/2024[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2024AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.1354 To 1357/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2022-23 Manas……….…….… ……….. ……..……………………....Appellant 14, Rbi Green Wood Nook, 369/2, Purbachal, Kalitala Road, Kolkata – 700078. [Pan: Aabam3353Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), Exemption, Kolkata............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri G. Banerjee, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rajat Datta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 03, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 04, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Bench: The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Jaipur [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Pertaining To Four Assessment Years I.E 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23 Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In All These Appeals Arise From Common Set Of Facts & Related To Same Party, Therefore, These Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience, Brevity & Clarity. Since The Grounds In All Appeals Are Identical, Except Change Of Figures, The First Appeal Being Ita No.1354/Kol/2024 For Assessment Year 2018-19 Is Taken As Lead Case.

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 250(6)

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

Manas, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(4), Exemption, Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1356/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.1354 To 1357/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2022-23 Manas……….…….… ……….. ……..……………………....Appellant 14, Rbi Green Wood Nook, 369/2, Purbachal, Kalitala Road, Kolkata – 700078. [Pan: Aabam3353Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), Exemption, Kolkata............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri G. Banerjee, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rajat Datta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 03, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 04, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Bench: The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Jaipur [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Pertaining To Four Assessment Years I.E 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23 Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In All These Appeals Arise From Common Set Of Facts & Related To Same Party, Therefore, These Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience, Brevity & Clarity. Since The Grounds In All Appeals Are Identical, Except Change Of Figures, The First Appeal Being Ita No.1354/Kol/2024 For Assessment Year 2018-19 Is Taken As Lead Case.

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 250(6)

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

Manas, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(4), Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1355/KOL/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.1354 To 1357/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2022-23 Manas……….…….… ……….. ……..……………………....Appellant 14, Rbi Green Wood Nook, 369/2, Purbachal, Kalitala Road, Kolkata – 700078. [Pan: Aabam3353Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), Exemption, Kolkata............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri G. Banerjee, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rajat Datta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 03, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 04, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Bench: The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Jaipur [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Pertaining To Four Assessment Years I.E 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23 Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In All These Appeals Arise From Common Set Of Facts & Related To Same Party, Therefore, These Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience, Brevity & Clarity. Since The Grounds In All Appeals Are Identical, Except Change Of Figures, The First Appeal Being Ita No.1354/Kol/2024 For Assessment Year 2018-19 Is Taken As Lead Case.

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 250(6)

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

Manas, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(4), Exemption, Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1354/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.1354 To 1357/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2022-23 Manas……….…….… ……….. ……..……………………....Appellant 14, Rbi Green Wood Nook, 369/2, Purbachal, Kalitala Road, Kolkata – 700078. [Pan: Aabam3353Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), Exemption, Kolkata............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri G. Banerjee, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rajat Datta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 03, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 04, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Bench: The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Jaipur [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Pertaining To Four Assessment Years I.E 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23 Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In All These Appeals Arise From Common Set Of Facts & Related To Same Party, Therefore, These Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience, Brevity & Clarity. Since The Grounds In All Appeals Are Identical, Except Change Of Figures, The First Appeal Being Ita No.1354/Kol/2024 For Assessment Year 2018-19 Is Taken As Lead Case.

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 250(6)

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

K. Adirajan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-4(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2316/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2316/Chny/2024 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Year: 2017-18 K. Adirajan, The Income Tax Officer, New No.19, Old No.35, Vs. Non Corporate Ward-4(1), Ramanuja Iyer Street, Chennai. Old Washermenpet, Chennai – 600 021. [Pan: Aaipr 6303D]

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. G. Saratha, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 69

find that the orders of Ld. CIT(A) is ex-parte without discussing the issue on merits which is 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

Promila Dua, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 29(1), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 3062/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2012-13 Promila Dua, Vs. Ito, G 45, Green Park Main, Ward-29(1), New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Avzpd3709K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. S.K. Chaturvedi, Ca Department By Sh. Yogesh Sharma, Sr. Dr

Section 144Section 250(6)Section 69A

section 69A unexplained cash deposits addition of Rs.12.83 lakhs, neither framed any points of determination nor any speaking adjudication thereupon as contemplated under section 250(6) of the Act. 5. Coupled with these, learned counsel has quoted assessee’s chronical illness as the sole reason of her non-appearance/non-

Piyush Swami, Hapur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 247/DEL/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)

Section 144Section 250(6)Section 69

making section 69 unexplained investment of Rs.33.76 lakhs have neither framed any points of determination nor any speaking adjudication thereof, as contemplated under section 250(6) of the Act. 4. Coupled with this, assessee’s claims his status as a non- resident as well, which is seriously objected from

Rajiv Kumar, Shahjahanpur vs. ITO-1(5) Shahjahanpur-2, Shahjahanpur

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

ITA 336/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshrarajiv Kumar V. Ito-1(5) 17 Rajeev Traders, Tiraha Aaykar Bhawan, Nh-24, Bajar, Powayan, Shahjahanpur- Bareilly Mod, 242401. Shahjahanpur. Pan: Aivpg8841Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl
Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)Section 253(3)Section 69A

discussion on the merits of the addition. She Page 3 of 5 submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) was duty bound under section 250(6) of Income Tax Act, to pass speaking order on merits of the issues in dispute. The Ld. AR for the Assessee also submitted that ... pass a speaking order on merits of the case. The failure of the Ld. CIT(A) to ensure compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act, in both letter and spirit, was erroneous on his part. It can be readily inferred that Page 4 of 5 dismissing the assessee

Pimpri Chinchwad Education Trust, Pune vs. Dy CIT Exemptions Pune, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 1880/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari, CIT
Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 250(6)Section 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA

Amol Prakash Sankpal, Sangli vs. ITO, Ward2, Sangli

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

ITA 1677/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1677/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Amol Prakash Sankpal, Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Sangli. Daphalapur Jath, Sangli, Sangli- 416402. Pan : Byjps7584K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Umesh Kr. Madhukar Mali Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 19.11.2024 : Date Of Pronouncement 29.11.2024 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.11.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Ao Erred In Making Addition To Total Income Of Rs.56,81,000/- U/S 68 Without Considering Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Ao Erred In Making Addition To Total Income Of Rs.56,81,000/- U/S 68

For Appellant: Shri Umesh Kr. Madhukar MaliFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250(6)Section 68

parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC without going into the merits of the case is in complete disregard of section 250(6) of the IT Act, which mandates that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has to decide the appeal on merits. Accordingly, it was requested before the Bench

Provash Adhikari, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 46(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 148/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

appeal on the ground of non-compliance to the notices issued and has not decided the appeal on merits. The provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act are reproduced as under: “250(6) – The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall ... state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision.” 4. In this respect, we note that Section 250(6) casts a duty on the Ld. CIT(A) to pass an order in appeal which should state the points for Page 5 of 10 I.T.A