“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)

Nayan Builders and Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. 7(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2958/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri A.S. KhairatFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar G. Menon, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 250(6)

compliance with notices, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without adjudicating the grounds raised by the assessee on merits, as required under section 250(6) of the Act. We find that in CIT v/s Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), [2016] 69 taxmann.com 407 (Bombay), the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court

M/S Savli Associates, Mumbai vs. Incomet Tax Officer, Ward 4(1)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1612/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "E" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay PawaskarFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule

Section 250Section 250(6)

appears before the CIT(A) or not, it is the statutory obligation of the CIT(A) to dispose of an appeal on merits. Section 250(6) of the Act lays down that the order passed by the CIT(A) shall be in writing, state the points for determination

Vikas Sharma, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 55(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 290/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Sumit Lalchandani, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Monika Dhami, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 69A

facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the CIT(A) dated 28.11.2023 is an ex-parte order and in view of Section 250(6), it is incumbent upon the CIT(A) to adjudicate on the merits of the case, which has not been done in the present case

Rajendra Pandurang Shinde, Pune vs. ITO Ward 7(2), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1384/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1384/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir JainFor Respondent: Shri Ratnakar Shelake

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 246ASection 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

make further inquiry and report the result of the same to him as found in Section 250(4) of the Act. 3 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

Rockwell Collins (India) Enterprises Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 340/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 340/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Rockwell Collins (India) Enterprises Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited. Bangalore Vs. Income Tax [Pan : Aadcr7773H] Circle-3(1) Hyderabad अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Sri Nageswar Rao, Ld.Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Sri Madan Mohan Meena, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/08/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement On: 27/08/2024 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, J.M: Aggrieved By The Order Dated 08/02/2024 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), In The Case Of Rockwell Collins (India) Enterprises Private Limited (“The Assessee”) For The Assessment Year 2017- 18, Assessee Preferred This Appeal. 2. At The Outset, The Ld.Ar Brought To The Notice Of The Bench That The Assessee Only Withdrew The Appeal Partially That Too Except Grounds No. 9

For Appellant: Sri Nageswar Rao, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Sri Madan Mohan Meena, DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY

Manjushree Devabhaktuni, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-6(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 647/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Sri Pranav Adv appeared for Sri A Srinivas, ARFor Respondent: Sri Srinath Sadanala, DR

Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)

evidence to substantiate her case, the learned CIT(A) did not appreciate the material on record. 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

M/S. Victor Commercial Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, CC - 1(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1127/KOL/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Aug 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Victor Commercial Co. Acit, Central Circle-1(2), Ltd., Kolkata, C/O. M/S Salarpuria Jajodia & Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, Vs Co., 7, C.R., Avenue, 3Rd Floor, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Kolkata - 700072 Bypass, Kolkata - 700017 (Pan: Aabcv0011C) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S. Jhajaria, ARFor Respondent: Pradip Biswas, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 250

related to credit of TDS, nor the order is a speaking one. In this respect, it is relevant to examine the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, which are reproduced as under: “250(6) – The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing ... shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision.” 7.1 Thus, 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 as well as the reason

Rajbir Khatana, Hisar vs. ITO Ward-3, Hisar

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

ITA 1380/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Pareekassessment Year 2017-18

For Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

dismissed the appeal in limine for want of prosecution by the assessee without adjudicating the appeal on merits as incumbent in law under Section 250(6) of the Act. Neither the point for determination was capsuled by the CIT(A) nor the decision thereon and the reasons for such decisions

Kissan Fats Ltd., Bathinda vs. DCIT, CC-1, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 408/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 250(6)Section 253

assessee is aggrieved by order dt. 01/05/2023 passed in first appeal bearing No. 10408/2012-13/IT/CIT(A)- 5/Ldh/2021-22 of Ld. CIT(A) under section 250(6) of the Act, which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. FACTUAL MATRIX 2. The assessee is a company under the Companies Act, 1956/2013

Liyakat Appalal Pathan, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1361/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1361/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ratnakar Shelake

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 246ASection 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

Shreenath Developers, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(5), Vadodara

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

ITA 909/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Upadhyay, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR

Section 68Section 69A

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 ... aside. In the case of Shri Nisarhusen Amdali Lakhani (ITA 532/Ahd/2018), ITAT Ahmedabad observed as under: “We straightway refer to Section 250(6) of the Act which enjoins that the CIT(A) shall state the points for determination before it and the decision shall be rendered on such points along

Uday Damodar Bajaj, Near Jog Maharaj, Bhajani Math, Nashik vs. Officer of the Income Tax, Ward 1(1), Nashik

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

ITA 1341/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shir Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1341/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Uday Damodar Bajaj, V The Income Tax Officer, Near Jog Maharaj, Bhajani S Ward-1(1), Nashik. Math, Dhammagiri Road, Varachi Peth, Igatpuri – 422403. Pan: Ahypb2584P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajendra Agiwal – Ar Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/08/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)/Jcit(A)-7, Kolkata Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, Dated 19.04.2024 For The A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “The Appellant, Aggrieved By The Order Passed By Ld. Additional / Joint Cit(A) - 7, Kolkata U/S 250 Of The Act Dated 19.04.2024 Preferred This Uday Damodar Bajaj [A]

Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)Section 270FSection 271ASection 69A

6. The Ld. Additional / Joint CIT(A) erred in passing the order without considering the merits which is in violation of provisions of section 250(6). Erred in not considering source of cash deposit 7. The Ld. Additional / Joint CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant is small businessman ... report the result of the same to him as found in Section 250(4) of the Act. 4 Uday Damodar Bajaj [A] 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

Bhushan Radhakishan Chechani, Aurangabad vs. ITO Ward-3 Jalna, Jalna

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

ITA 1340/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shir Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1340/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ashok Radhakrishan Chechnai, V The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.B-56, Sector C-N-4, S Ward-1, Jalna. Cidco, Aurangabad – 431001 Pan: Aappc5074R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanjeevkuamr B Kabra – Ar Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/08/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)/Jcit(A), Gwalior Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, Dated 28.02.2024 For The A.Y.2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Whether The Learned Assessing Officer Is Justified In Passing The Assessment Order For The Year On The Basis Of Joint Development Agreement Without Verifying The Fact That Possession Of Plot Till Ashok Radhakishan Chechnai [A]

Section 148Section 148(1)Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 54F

Jayantilal Ramchandra Jain, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Pune

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

ITA 1304/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shir Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1304/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jayantilal Ramchandra Jain, V The Income Tax Officer, 3 B, Mahatma Gandhi Road, S Ward-2(3), Pune. Krikee, Pune – 411003. Pan: Aaqpj2957F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri C V Deshpande – Ar Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/08/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac]Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, Dated 31.08.2023 For The A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Lower Authorities Gravely Erred In Not Accepting Request Of The Appellant For Adjourning The Matter By Giving Some More Time To The Appellant & Passing The Exparty Order Within 5 Days Of Request By The Appellant Jayantilal Ramchandra Jain [A]

Section 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 69

Abc Sales Corporation, Kasaragod vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Kozhikode

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 459/COCH/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Aug 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 143(3)Section 153C

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

St Sebastian Homes Co-Op Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer NFAC/ Ward-23(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in the above terms

ITA 1049/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan & The St. Sebastian Homes Co- Vs. Income Tax Officer Operative Society Ltd. Neac/Ward-23(3)(1), Mumbai 3, Sebastian House, 42, Rebello Income Tax Office, Matru Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai – Mandir, Mumbai – 400 007. 400 050. Pan: Aaaat3419K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 80P(2)(d)

erred by dismissing the appeal without any discussion on merit of the case ignoring the mandate of section 250(6). 4. In the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred by relying on case laws/citations, which are not applicable to the appellant's case ... erred by dismissing the appeal without any discussion on merit of the case ignoring the mandate of section 250(6). 4. In the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred by relying on case laws/citations, which are not applicable to the appellant's case

The St. Sebastian Homes Co-Operative Society Ltd, Mumbai Suburban vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-23(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in the

ITA 1048/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 80P(2)(d)

Jyothi Auto Fuels, Badagara vs. ITO, Ward-2, Kozhikode

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 94/COCH/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Aug 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

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

Section 250(6)Section 271B

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

Benoy Philip, Ernakulam vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 79/COCH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Babu, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. DR

Section 250(6)Section 272

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

Sujith Sreenivasan Kakkanat, Chembukavu vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Thrissur

ITA 44/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Aug 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: -None-For 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