“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)

Vellikulangara Service Co-Operati Ve Bank Ltd., Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer., Thrissur

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 744/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 250Section 250(6)Section 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member and Shri Amarjit Singh

Vellikulangara Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer., Thrissur

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 743/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 250Section 250(6)Section 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member and Shri Amarjit Singh

Vellikulangara Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer, Thrissur

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 742/COCH/2023[AY 2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 250Section 250(6)Section 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member and Shri Amarjit Singh

Ayyappa Roller Mills Ltd., Kochi vs. Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward 1(1), Kochi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 725/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhayyappa Roller Flour Mills Ltd. The Income Tax Officer Door No. V 679-C, Indl. Dev. Area Corporate Ward 1(1) Muppathadam Post Vs. Cr Building, I.S. Press Road Edayar, Kochi 683110 Kochi 682018 [Pan: Aacca6840M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Abhiram Sunish, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 250Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member and Shri Amarjit Singh

Iriveri Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Kannur vs. The ITO, Kannur

ITA 502/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.V.Swarnalatha, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant

Iriveri Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Kannur vs. The ITO, Kannur

ITA 501/COCH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.V.Swarnalatha, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant

Iriveri Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Kannur vs. The ITO, Kannur

ITA 500/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.V.Swarnalatha, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant

Bay Shore Properties Private Limited, Kochi vs. ITO Corp Ward 1(1), Kochi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 192/COCH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Mohanan A, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH : COCHIN BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH

Chandrakant Kantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3874/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Section 250Section 250(6)

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

Shree Ganesh Developers, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 28(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2424/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Learned Cit(A), Who Dismissed

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘B’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH

Nilesh Suresh Chaudhari, Jalgaon vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Jalgaon

Appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 1649/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri B.S. Rajpurohit, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK

Chandra Gupta Basetty, Mancherial vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Manchirial

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

ITA 843/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.843/Hyd/2024 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Chandra Gupta Basetty Income Tax Officer Mancherial Vs. Ward-1 Mancherial [Pan : Aenpb6195G] अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent धििााररती द्वारा/Assessee By : Shri K.A.Sai Prasad, Ar राजस्‍व द्वारा/Revenue By : Shri Kumaran Ram, Dr सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 23/09/2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 24/09/2024 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, J.M: Aggrieved By The Order Dated 28/03/2024 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Learned Cit(A)”), In The Case Of Chandra Gupta Basetty (“The Assessee”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18, The Assessee Preferred This Appeal With A Delay Of 95 Days. 2. At The Outset Learned Ar Submits That The Learned Cit(A) Recorded That So Many Notices Were Issued & Because Of The Nonappearance Of The Assessee He Proceeded Ex-Parte & Dismissed The Appeal In Limine. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit & Submitted That The He Filed An Appeal Before The Learned Cit(A) Against The Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri K.A.Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumaran Ram, 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. 3. 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. 5. 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

Guthikonda Pradeep Kumar Reddy, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 825/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.825/Hyd/2024 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Guthikonda Pradeep Income Tax Officer Kumar Reddy Vs. Ward-9(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Anrpg7345N] अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent धििााररती द्वारा/Assessee By : Mohd.Afzal, Ar राजस्‍व द्वारा/Revenue By : Shri Kumaran Ram, Dr सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/09/2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 24/09/2024 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, J.M: Aggrieved By The Order Dated 17/03/2024 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Learned Cit(A)”), In The Case Of Guthikonda Pradeep Kumar Reddy (“The Assessee”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18, The Assessee Preferred This Appeal With A Delay Of 465 Days. 2. At The Outset, Assessee Brought To My Notice That In Form No.35, The Assessee Requested Not To Communicate The Notices By Email By Specifically Noting So, But Inspite Of The Same, The Learned Cit(A) Sent The Notices To The Email Of The Assessee, Therefore, Miscommunication Happened & The Mail Sent By The Learned Cit(A) Escaped The Attention Of The Assessee.

For Appellant: Mohd.Afzal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumaran Ram, DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)

learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without adverting the issues, grounds urged and the merits thereon. 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 ... facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order does not comply with the requirement of Section 250(6) of the Act and cannot be sustained. Learned AR submitted that since the learned Assessing Officer also finalized the assessment under section

Sri Shiridi Sai Educational Society, Warangal vs. ITO., Ward-1, Warangal

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

ITA 703/HYD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.703/Hyd/2024 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Sri Shiridi Sai Educational Ito, Ward-1 Society Vs. Warangal Warangal [Pan :Aanas9875P] अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ranjan Agarwala, DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)

such notices nor did the assessee produce any documents, explanation and evidence to substantiate the grounds raised. 5. 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 ... facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order does not comply with the requirement of Section 250(6) of the Act and cannot be sustained. Since the learned Assessing Officer finalized the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, affording

Shashikant Krishna Shetty, Kalyan vs. Income Tax Officer-3(2), Kalyan

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

ITA 1879/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Brijesh VyasFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT, DR

Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 48Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL

Somnath Nagnathappa Mukta, Latur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle - 2, Aurangabad

ITA 63/PUN/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh and Mrs. J.R. ChandekarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari, CIT

Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(b)

1 ITA.Nos.61, 62 & 63/PUN./2022 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA

Somnath Nagnathappa Mukta, Latur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle - 2, Aurangabad

ITA 62/PUN/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Sept 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh and Mrs. J.R. ChandekarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari, CIT

Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(b)

1 ITA.Nos.61, 62 & 63/PUN./2022 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA

Somnath Nagnathappa Mukta, Latur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle - 2, Aurangabad

ITA 61/PUN/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Sept 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh and Mrs. J.R. ChandekarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari, CIT

Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(b)

1 ITA.Nos.61, 62 & 63/PUN./2022 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA

Md Mansoor, Mahabubnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mahbubnagar

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

ITA 839/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri R.Mohan Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Aluru Venkata Rao, DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 250(6)

Holiday Dreamz Tours and Travels Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 678/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia.आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.678/Hyd/2024 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Holiday Dreamz Tours & Income Tax Officer Travels Private Limited Vs. Ward-2(3) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aadch0599P] अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri D Praveen, DR

Section 250Section 250(6)

such notices nor did the assessee produce any documents, explanation and evidence to substantiate the grounds raised. 5. 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 ... facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order does not comply with the requirement of Section 250(6) of the Act and cannot be sustained and hence remit the issue to the file of the learned Assessing Officer for considering the submissions