← 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)

Eriki Murali, Tirupati vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1(4), Tirupati

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

ITA 622/HYD/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Oct 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.622/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madan Mohan Meena, DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)

merits of the case and disposed of by referring to the various aspects of merits. He, therefore, submits that the provisions under section 250 (6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) are not complied with. 5. Though the learned DR vehemently relied on the orders ... such notices nor did the assessee produce any documents, explanation and evidence to substantiate the grounds raised. 7. Requirement of law under section 250 (6) of the Act is that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points

Bul Infradevelopers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, 15(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3978/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ashutosh DashFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH

Sanjay Mahipat Sakhale, Mumbai vs. Central Circle 3(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3313/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Ganesh ShettyFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

authority nor the ld.CIT(A) has decided the appeal on merit as prescribed u/s 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 7. Section 250(6) of the Act contemplates that the ld.CIT(A) would determine the point in dispute and record reasons on such point in support

Rameshwar Baburao Bharad, Parbhani vs. ITO Ward-Hingoli, Hingoli

Appeals are ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES

ITA 1592/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Smt. Astha Chandra & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Shubham Rathi [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Arvind Desai [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

NFAC with a direction to deal therewith on merits de-novo in accordance with applicable law and pass speaking orders in terms of section 250(6) of the Act. Needless to state that the Ld. NFAC shall accord three effective opportunities in each case separately to the assessee to explain

Rameshwar Baburao Bharad, Parbhani vs. ITO Ward-Hingoli, Hingoli

Appeals are ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES

ITA 1591/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Smt. Astha Chandra & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Shubham Rathi [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Arvind Desai [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

NFAC with a direction to deal therewith on merits de-novo in accordance with applicable law and pass speaking orders in terms of section 250(6) of the Act. Needless to state that the Ld. NFAC shall accord three effective opportunities in each case separately to the assessee to explain

Rameshwar Baburao Bharad, Parbhani vs. ITO Ward-Hingoli, Hingoli

Appeals are ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES

ITA 1590/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Smt. Astha Chandra & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Shubham Rathi [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Arvind Desai [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

NFAC with a direction to deal therewith on merits de-novo in accordance with applicable law and pass speaking orders in terms of section 250(6) of the Act. Needless to state that the Ld. NFAC shall accord three effective opportunities in each case separately to the assessee to explain

Ashish Chandrakant Saste, Pune vs. ITO Ward 8(3), Pune

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1580/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godaraनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ashish Chandrakant Saste Vs. Ito, Dhanlaxmi Nivas, Shivaji Wadi, Ward 8(3), A/P Moshi, Haveli, Pune Pune – 412105 Pan : Bprrs3036P Appellant Respondent

Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S. GODARA

Energy Development Company Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-12(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 335/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 144Section 250(6)

decide the same on merit after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee which would be in accordance with the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act which requires the first appellate authority to state the point for determination and decision thereon and reason for arriving at such

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(1), Kolkata vs. Shrivardhan Mohta, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1056/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarmai.T.(S.S.)A. Nos.: 157 To 163/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2015-16 Shri Vardhan Mohta………………………………………………………..Appellant [Pan: Aelpm 0089 A] Vs. Acit, Cen.Cir-1(1), Kolkata…………………………………………….Respondent

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'बी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA डॉ. मनीष

Cher Medical Technology, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, Maharashtra

In the result, the appeal is allowed as stated hereinabove

ITA 18/MUM/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI BR BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI BR BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL

Sarojben Rajkumar Bansal Legal Heir of Late Rajkumar Kakaram Bansal, Bhavnagar vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Bhavnagar

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

ITA 306/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.306/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Sarojben Rajkumar Bansal The Dy.Cit बनाम/ Legal Heir Of Circle-1 V/S. Late Shri Rajkumar Kakaram Bhavnagar – 364 001 Bansal Plot No.1497/B, Opp. Theosophical Lodge Bhavnagar, Gujarat 364 001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aanpb 1618 G अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prithviraj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Prithviraj Meena, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

erred in law and on facts in deciding the appeal without entering into merits of the case in violation of Section 250(6) of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of id. AO of reopening ... reopening of assessment goes against the Sarojben Rajkumar Bansal (L/H. of Late Rajkumar Kakaram Bansal) Asst. Year : 2013-14 mandate of section 250(6) of the Act, which requires the CIT(A) to pass a reasoned and speaking order on all issues raised by the assessee. In support

Chetna Vimalkumar Desai, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1016/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Chetna Vimalkumar Desai Ito, Ward-3(3)(1) C-58, Bhagwati Nagar Society Vs Ahmedabad. Sola Road Thaltej, Ahmedabad. Pan : Amopd 8417 A (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Parin S. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ravindra, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/10/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Parin S. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, SR.DR
Section 250Section 250(6)Section 79A

required to be quashed. 2. The NFAC erred in law and on facts in not passing order as per section 250(6) of the Act. 3. the ld.NFAC erred in law and on facts in making addition u/s.79Aof the Act of Rs.37,03,500/-. 3. At the outset, the ld.counsel

Habibullah Abbasali Chaudhary, Pune vs. DCIT Central Circle 2(3) Pune, Pune

ITA 971/PUN/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

therefore, the mere fact that there is some other similarly placed assessee whose facts are neither here nor there discussed as per section 250(6) of the Act; would not form the sole reason for granting relief to the assessee/respondent herein. We thus reject learned counsel’s vehement contentions that

Habibullah Abbasali Chaudhary, Pune vs. DCIT Central Circle 2(3), Pune

ITA 970/PUN/2024[F.Y.2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2024

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

therefore, the mere fact that there is some other similarly placed assessee whose facts are neither here nor there discussed as per section 250(6) of the Act; would not form the sole reason for granting relief to the assessee/respondent herein. We thus reject learned counsel’s vehement contentions that

ACIT, Central Circle-2(3), Pune vs. Habibullah Abbasali Chaudhary, Pune

ITA 1319/PUN/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

therefore, the mere fact that there is some other similarly placed assessee whose facts are neither here nor there discussed as per section 250(6) of the Act; would not form the sole reason for granting relief to the assessee/respondent herein. We thus reject learned counsel’s vehement contentions that

ACIT, Central Circle-2(3), Pune vs. Habibullah Abbasali Chaudhary, Pune

ITA 1318/PUN/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

therefore, the mere fact that there is some other similarly placed assessee whose facts are neither here nor there discussed as per section 250(6) of the Act; would not form the sole reason for granting relief to the assessee/respondent herein. We thus reject learned counsel’s vehement contentions that

Kasree Devi, Mawana Meerut vs. ITO Ward-1(1)(3), Ayakar Bhawan, Bhainsali Ground, Meerut

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1019/DEL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 250Section 250(4)Section 69A

various Tribunals, we are of the considered view that the orders passed by Ld. CIT(A) is in contravention of provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act. We are of the considered view that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in summarily dismissing

Naina Devi Commerce Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 6(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 628/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 250(6)

appellate order passed ex-parte in liminie without discussing and deciding the issue on merit which is in clear violation of provision of Section 250(6) which provides that the Ld. CIT(A) has to state the point of determination and also the decision thereon and reasons for the said

Sanjay Singal, Chandigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-1, Chandigarh

ITA 655/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69ASection 69C

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘B’ CHANDIGARH

M/S Sanjay Singal HUF, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh

ITA 610/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69ASection 69C

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘B’ CHANDIGARH