← 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)

Vishwakalyan Multi State Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Aurangabad vs. Circle 1, Aurangabad

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

ITA 909/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.909/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 148Section 246ASection 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 69

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

Danabhai Bharvad, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 844/AHD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) In Turn Has Arisen From The Assessment Order Dated 28-11- 2017 Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S. 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act 1961. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee In Memo Of Appeal Filed With Tribunal, Reads As Under:- “1. The Assessing Officer & Commissioner Appeal Have Erred In Law & In Facts, In Considering The Cash Deposit As Un-Explained Cash Deposit.

For Appellant: Shri Mayur Thakkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 249(4)Section 250Section 28

appeal of the assessee, on merits in accordance with law, by passing a speaking and reasoned order , keeping in view provisions of Section 250(6) of the 1961 Act. The ld. CIT(A) shall admit the additional evidences filed by the assessee, while adjudicating the appeal of the assessee ... section 250(6), the CIT(A) has to state the points for determination, decision thereof and reasoning thereof. I clarify that I have not commented on the merits of the issue arising in the appeal. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bhupendrabhai Punjabhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(3), Vadodara

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

ITA 655/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 655/Ahd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) िनधा"रण वष" Bhupendrabhai Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Punjabhai Patel Income Tax Vs. Near Towers Dabhasa, Tal: Circle-1(3), Baroda Padra, Vadodara, Gujarat, 391440 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Amgpp7772G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Sanjay R Shah, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ashesh Rajesh Revar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23/07/2024 26/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 06.10.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds In This Appeal:

For Respondent: Shri Ashesh Rajesh Revar, Sr. DR
Section 54F

assessee in the statement of facts and had merely dismissed the appeal of the assessee due to non-compliance. The provision of Section 250(6) of the Act requires the Ld. CIT(A) to dispose the matter in writing and with reasons on the point of dispute raised

Avinash Rajendrakumar Gholap, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 14(5), Pune

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

ITA 861/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.861/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Avinash Rajendrakumar Vs. Ito, Ward-14(5), Pune. Gholap, A/P Gholapwadi, Uddhat Taluka Indrapur, Pune- 413103. Pan : Abjpg2776M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. S. Gudhate Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 10.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.04.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Erred In Passing Order Wherein Specific Request Of Adjournment Was Made By Assessee & Same Was Not Rejected By Ld Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac).

For Appellant: Shri S. S. GudhateFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 142(1)Section 144B(1)(xxiv)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 69A

dispose of the appeal on merits even in the case of ex-parte orders. The settled positions of law i.e. as per section 250(6) of the IT Act, 1961 mandates the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to dispose of the appeal by adjudicating the issue raised in appeal

Zubbin Khmbatta, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Office Ward 20(3)(1), Piramal Chamber, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 2359/MUM/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

For Appellant: Shri Sumit MantriFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 250(6)Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “G” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI OMKARESHWAR

Zubbin Khmbatta, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 20(3)(1), Piramal Chamber, Mumbai

ITA 2274/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

For Appellant: Shri Sumit MantriFor Respondent: Shri Dr Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 250(6)Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “G” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI OMKARESHWAR

Zubbin Khmbatta, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Office Ward 20(3)(1), Piramal Chamber, Mumbai

ITA 2271/MUM/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

For Appellant: Shri Sumit MantriFor Respondent: Shri Dr Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 250(6)Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “G” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI OMKARESHWAR

Ks Ultratech Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

Appeals are allowed

ITA 8184/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rishpal Bedi, CIT-D.R
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250(6)

filed by the assessee are directed against the common order dated 23.10.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, Kanpur, under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to ‘the Act’) arising out of the orders dated 28.12.2016 passed by the Learned DCIT

Ks Ultratech Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

Appeals are allowed

ITA 8183/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rishpal Bedi, CIT-D.R
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250(6)

filed by the assessee are directed against the common order dated 23.10.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, Kanpur, under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to ‘the Act’) arising out of the orders dated 28.12.2016 passed by the Learned DCIT

Ks Ultratech Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

Appeals are allowed

ITA 8182/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rishpal Bedi, CIT-D.R
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250(6)

filed by the assessee are directed against the common order dated 23.10.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, Kanpur, under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to ‘the Act’) arising out of the orders dated 28.12.2016 passed by the Learned DCIT

Ks Ultratech Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

Appeals are allowed

ITA 8181/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rishpal Bedi, CIT-D.R
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250(6)

filed by the assessee are directed against the common order dated 23.10.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, Kanpur, under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to ‘the Act’) arising out of the orders dated 28.12.2016 passed by the Learned DCIT

Ks Ultratech Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

Appeals are allowed

ITA 8180/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rishpal Bedi, CIT-D.R
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250(6)

filed by the assessee are directed against the common order dated 23.10.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, Kanpur, under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to ‘the Act’) arising out of the orders dated 28.12.2016 passed by the Learned DCIT

M/S. South Asian Hospitality Services (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5967/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Aggarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Rishpal Bedi, CIT-D.R
Section 115JSection 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 250(6)

assessee are directed against the orders both dated 12.01.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to ‘the Act’) arising out of the order ITA Nos.5966 & 5967/Del/2015 South Asian Hospitality Services

M/S. South Asian Hospitality Services (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5966/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Aggarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Rishpal Bedi, CIT-D.R
Section 115JSection 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 250(6)

assessee are directed against the orders both dated 12.01.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to ‘the Act’) arising out of the order ITA Nos.5966 & 5967/Del/2015 South Asian Hospitality Services

Anuradha Vasireddy, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Vijayawada

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

ITA 113/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.113/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Anuradha Vasireddy, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 29-26-129, Jadagam Vari Street, Ward-2(2), Suryaraopet, Vijayawada-520002, Vijayawada. Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Acjpv6946M (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 25/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 44ASection 69A

principles of natural justice. 3. The disposal of the appeal in limine by the Ld. CIT(A) is against the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) overlooked the assessee’s explanation regarding the credits appearing in the bank account and wrongly applying

Rahul Sibal, Gurgaon vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre - ITO Ward 3(1), Gurgaon

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

ITA 571/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumarrahul Sibal, Vs. Ito, Ward 3 (1), 218 A, Tower 2, 18Th Floor, Gurgaon. Magnolias Dlf Golf Course, Dlf Phase 5, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon – 122 003 (Haryana). (Pan : Ftqps8636N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Brij Mohan Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2024 Date Of Order : 25.07.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahyathis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 31.07.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. That The Assessment Order Dated 23.02.2022 Passed Under Section 147/144 Rws 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') For Assessment Year ('Ay') 2016-17 By The Assessing Officer ('Ao') As Upheld By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As 'Cit(A)') Vide Order

For Appellant: Ms. Ananya Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Brij Mohan Singh, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 234ASection 250(6)

facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the CIT(A) dated 31.07.2023 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

Kiran Kantilal Chokshi, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(4), Vadodara

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

ITA 699/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 68

notices, the assessee sent adjournment request to NFAC. However, the same was not considered by the NFAC and passed ex-parte appellate order. Section 250(6) of the Act provides that the Ld.CIT(A) shall dispose of the appeal on merits and spelt out the reason for such decision

Sri Anjaneya Vividoddesha Souharda Sahakari Niyamita, Harihara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Davanagere

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

ITA 1197/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Years : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ramanagowdar S Gowda, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 5

assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-party ignoring the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act. 9. Now the assessee has come up in appeal before us and raised following grounds. 10. At the outset the counsel for the assessee ... specify whether any notice of hearing was actually served on assessee or not. Further the CIT(A) has also overlooked the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, which mandates that the CIT(A) would decide each . Page 5 of 6 and every ground supporting with his reasoning

Goenka and Associates Educational Trust, Mumbai vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-1(1), Mumbai

ITA 2310/MUM/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

For Appellant: Shri Aamod PrabhudesaiFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “D” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI OMKARESHWAR

Abdul Karim Mohamed Naik, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1901/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ismail Halvadwala, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Dhivya Ruth J. Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “H (SMC)”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI