← 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)

Shri Omkar Nagari Sah Pat Sanstha, Sangli vs. Addl. CIT (A), Varanasi

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

ITA 2957/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2957/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 250(6)Section 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2957/PUN/2025

Mangalabai Vijaykumar Sahuji (Deceased) Through Legal Heir (Son) Rahul Vijaykumar Sahuji, Aurangabad (Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar) vs. Income Tax Officer, Aurangabad (Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar)

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

ITA 2895/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2895/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Mangalabai Vijaykumar Vs. Ito, Ward- 1(11), Sahuji (Deceased), Aurangabad. Through Legal Heir (Son) Rahul Vijaykumar Sahuji, A-13, Udyog Sadan, Midc, Railway Station, Aurangabad (Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar), Aurangabad- 431005. Pan : Awwps9047D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pushpadant Vinod Sahuji (Virtual) Revenue By : Shri Shashank Ojha (Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 13.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Manish Borad, Am: This Appeal Filed At The Instance Of Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 13.10.2025 Which Is Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2017-18 Framed On 24.12.2019 By The Ito, Ward- 1(11), Aurangabad. 2. I Note That The Assessee Has Raised As Many As 29 Grounds Of Appeal Raising Various Legal Issues As Well As Grounds On Merits

For Appellant: Shri Pushpadant Vinod Sahuji (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha (Virtual)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA

Jignesh Narendrabhai Mandaliya, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1)(1), Rajkot

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 874/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot16 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Brijesh Parekh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Gopi Nath Chaubey, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 147Section 250

decided the issue in respect of the ground raised by the assessee in Memo of Appeal, as per the mandate of provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. Hence, I am of the view ITA No. 874/Rjt/2025 A.Y 19-20 Jignesh N Mandaliya that one more opportunity should

The Kara Dudh Utpadak Sahkari Mandli Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Godhra

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

ITA 2414/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra Kamblethe Kara Dudh Utpadak Sahkari The Income Tax Vs. Mandli Ltd. Officer, Kara Kanjipani Ward-1, Godhra Jambughoda Godhra – 389 001 Panchmahal – 389 390

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: -None-
Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 270A

erred in law and on facts in confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer ex-parte in violation of the mandate under section 250(6) of the Act, which requires the Commissioner (Appeals) to dispose of the appeal through a reasoned order on each ground of appeal, irrespective

Sunil Vasantrao Chokakkar, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Kudal

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

ITA 2982/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Pune16 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2982/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2982/PUN/2025

Atul Agarwal, New Dev Puri, Bhatipura, Meerut vs. Income Tax Officer, Meerut

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3756/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Animesh Vashisth, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT- DR
Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153CSection 44A

opinion that the CIT(A) has not examined the entire conspectus of the case properly and has not followed the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. In view of the same we are of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice and balance of convenience

Hero Fincorp Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 11(1), Delhi, C.R. Building

ITA 2542/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2542/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year:2017-18 Hero Fincop Ltd., 34 Community Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1) C. R. Building, New Delhi-110002 अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Pan:Aaach0157J Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv. & Shri Himanshu Aggarwal Adv. Revenue By Ms. Pooja Swaroop, Cit(Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14.01.2026 उद्घोषणाकीतारीख/Pronouncement On 16.01.2026 आदेश /Order Per Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am, The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of ‘Hire Purchase Leasing & Finance'. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac)/(First Appellate Authority Hereinafter Referred As “Faa”), Delhi Dated 27.03.2024 Arising Out Of Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 29.12.2019For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Disallowance Of Provision For Collection Charges -Rs. 9,75,00,000/-

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 251(1)Section 56(2)(viib)

time ultimately concluding that the issue "cannot be adjudicated". 7. That the impugned order passed by the NFAC is in gross violation of sections 250(6)/ 251(1) of the Act. Disallowance of depreciation on car -Rs. 3,06,889/- 8. That the NFAC erred on facts ... section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. 14. That the impugned order passed by the NFAC is in gross violation of provisions of sections 250(6)/ 251(1) of the Act. 15. That the NFAC grossly erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the assessing officer passed

Al Hamd Agro Food Products Pvt Ltd, Aligarh vs. Dc/ACIT, Aligarh

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 63/AGR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 143(2)Section 250(6)Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR

ACIT, Agra vs. Saurabh Gupta, Agra

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue, ITA No

ITA 166/AGR/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2026

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271DSection 271ESection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR

ACIT, Agra vs. Saurabh Gupta, Agra

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue, ITA No

ITA 165/AGR/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2026

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271DSection 271ESection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR

Samudra Commotrade (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.O, NFAC, New Delhi, Delhi

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

ITA 1057/KOL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 68

Samudra Commotrade (P) Ltd. the Ld. CIT(A) as mentioned in the appellate order, the appeal was dismissed. We note that section 250(6) of the Act casts a duty upon the Ld. CIT(A) to pass an order in appeal which should state the points for determination

Balu Vithal Pawale, Pune vs. ITO WD- 2(4), Pune

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

ITA 2869/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2869/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Balu Vithal Pawale, V Assessing Officer, Village-Kasarsai, S National Faceless Taluka-Mulsi, Assessment Centre, Dist-Pune – 410506. Delhi Pan:Bfcpp7170L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri B.S.Rajpurohit Revenue By Shri Madhukar Anand-Jcit(Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 08/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 14/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18 Dated 16.10.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147R.W.S 144 Read With Section 144B Of The Act, Dated 27.03.2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144Section 144BSection 147rSection 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

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

Trutech Constructions Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-25, Dehli

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5297/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Amitabh Shuklaita No. 5297/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Trutech Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, Ja-1204, Dlf Towers, Tower-A, Plot Ward-25(3), No. 10, Nhcc, Jasola, Zakir Nagar, New Delhi New Friends Colony, New Delhi-110025 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcg4324K Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Ms. Uma Upadhyay, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.01.2026 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/250/2025–26/1077284904(1) Dated 20.06.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 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

Roshan Ali, Proprietor M/S Sagar Dairy vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3)(5), Income Tax Department

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 125/DDN/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Roshan Ali, Proprietor Vs. Income Tax Officer, M/S. Sagar Dairy, Ward-1(3)(5), Dargah Pahari Gate Near Roorkee Pani Ki Tanki, Piran Kaliyar, Roorkee, Uttarakhand Pan :Bsepa8697Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr

Section 249(4)(b)Section 250(6)

admit the assessee’s appeal under section 249(4)(b) for non-payment of advance tax than having adjudicated on merits under section 250(6) of the Act, requiring him to frame points of determination followed by a detailed discussion thereupon. 3. We further make it clear that there

Mamta Dholpure, Indore vs. ITO 3(3), Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 712/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271

decision thereon_and_ the reason for the decision.”. The assessee has also raised following grievance in Ground No. 2 of Appeal Memo: “2. Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961-Non-speaking and Ex- parte Order That the Learned CIT(A) has erred in disposing of the appeal ... during the assessment proceedings. The CIT(A) failed to discharge the statutory obligation of passing a reasoned and speaking order as mandated under Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, appellant prays to restore the matter to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing proper opportunity of hearing.” 6. Therefore

Aatash Notcontrol Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Cirlce-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1996/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleaatash Norcontrol Limited, Vs. 213, Devarc Commercial Complex, Deputy Commissioner Of Nr. Iscon Circle, Jodhpur Income-Tax, Charrasta, S.O. Sg Highway, Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad-380015 Ahmedabad [Pan : Aafca 9471 R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant Represented By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr Advocate & Shri Kushal Fofaria, Ar Respondent Represented By: Shri R.P. Rastogi, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 13.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.01.2026

Section 142(1)Section 144B(8)Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 28Section 36(1)(vii)

erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating the merits of the case resulting in violation of Section 250(6) of the Act. 3. The Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts of the case in re-opening the assessment

Mahipatsinh Ramseenh Solankee, Dekavada, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3)(5), Vejalpur, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1672/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblemahipatsinh Ramseenh Solankee, Vs. 154-C, Vibhag-1, Kakubha No Income Tax Officer, Madh, Dekavada, Detroj Rampura, Ward 3(3)(5, Ahmedabad-382120 Ahmedabad [Pan : Grips 1892 H] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant Represented By : Shri S.V. Agrawal, Ar & Shri Divya S. Agrawal, Ar Respondent Represented By: Shri Abhijit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.01.2026 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

Section 143(2)Section 2(14)Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 250(6)Section 48

order in concurrence of order of Ld. A.O. without himself going into merits of the case is in violation of Provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act. The Hearing Notices are not served to assessee. They are served to Ex. A.R. who did not inform to assessee

Mahesh Krishnarao Dhavan, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 10(1), Pune

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

ITA 2977/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2977/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Respondent: Assessee by None
Section 143(3)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2977/PUN/2025

Sangitadevi Kishorekumar Mundra, Ichalkaranji vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolhapur

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

ITA 2762/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S Shingte, ARFor Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar, Addl.CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL

Venkateshwara B V Biocorp Private Limited, Pune vs. Circle 12, Pune

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

ITA 2759/PUN/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Jan 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S Pathak, ARFor Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar, Addl.CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL