“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)

M/S Cane Development Council Chilwaria, Brh, C/O Ayyubi Chamber, Raniganj, Lakhimpur Kheri-262802, Lakhimpur Kheri vs. The Income Tax Officer-1, Bahraich

ITA 186/LKW/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 186/Lkw/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Cane Development Council Chilwaria, Brh C/O. Ayyubi Chamber, Raniganj, Lakhimpur Kheri, Up-262802. Pan: Aaatc6087H . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Shubham Rastogi [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Adita Singh [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 253(1)Section 80P(2)

circumstances the impugned order deserves to be set-aside to the file of Ld. NFAC for complying with the mandates of section 250(6) of the Act. The Ld. AR could hardly dislodge the averment & arguments of the Revenue. 6. We have heard rival parties’ submissions on limited issue ... mandated to state point of determination, its decision thereon and clear reasons therefore in terms of section 250(6) of the Act. 8. It is a trite law as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case ‘Chandra Kishore Jha Vs Mahavir Prasad’ reported

Dharmendra Jinendra Jain, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 540/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rupesh R. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40A(2)(b)

Press Private Limited. It was submitted that the appellate order passed by ld. CIT(A) is not in compliance with the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act as it is a cryptic order wherein ld. CIT(A) has not dealt with the issues arising in the appeal ... prosecution of appeal by the assessee and simply assessment order was upheld , which appellate order is not in compliance with the provisions of section 250(6). The ld. CIT(A) has claimed to have issued notice of hearing to the assessee, but there is no mention of mode of service

Capiqal Consultancy Services Private Limited, Panvel Mumbai vs. DCIT, Panvel

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

ITA 482/MUM/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Capiqal Consultancy Vs. Dcit, Service Private Limited, Panvel, 1107, Post Sai Village, Mumbai - 410206 Bhomnagar Taluka Panvel, District Raigarh Palghar, Mumbai-410206 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacm4143K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: H.M. Bhatt

Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 40

days from issuing of the notice which demonstrate that adequate opportunity of hearing has not been provided to the assessee. As contemplated in section 250(6) of the Act, the ld. CIT(A) is required to adjudicate the appeal filed by the assessee on merit, and to provide reasoning

DCIT, Exemption Circle, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh vs. Jhansi Development Authority, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh

ITA 2693/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Ms. Madhumita Royi.T.A. Nos. 2689, 2690, 2691, 2692 & 2693 /Del/2023 (Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Jhansi Development Income Tax, Exemption- Authority, Circle, Ghaziabad, Uttar Commissionery Campus, Pradesh Jhansi Railway Station S.O. Jhansi - Uttar Pradesh Pan: Aaalj 0068 K (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. C. Srivastava, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Rishpal Bedi, CIT-D.R

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 250(6)

filed by the Revenue are directed against the orders dated 26.07.2023 & 05.08.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- NFAC, Delhi under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to ‘the Act’) arising out of the Assessment Order passed by the Assessing Officer

DCIT, Exemption Circle, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh vs. Jhansi Development Authority, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh

ITA 2692/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri G. C. Srivastava, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Rishpal Bedi, CIT-D.R

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 250(6)

DCIT, Exemption, Circle Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad Uttarpradesh vs. Jhansi Development Authority, Jhansi, Uttarpradesh

ITA 2691/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri G. C. Srivastava, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Rishpal Bedi, CIT-D.R

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 250(6)

DCIT, Exemption Circle, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh vs. Jhansi Development Authority, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh

ITA 2690/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri G. C. Srivastava, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Rishpal Bedi, CIT-D.R

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 250(6)

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption-Circle, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh vs. Jhansi Development Authority, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh

ITA 2689/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri G. C. Srivastava, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Rishpal Bedi, CIT-D.R

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 250(6)

Mohammed Nasrudeen, Pudhukottai vs. ITO, Ward 3, Cuddalore

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

ITA 646/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.646/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 V. Shri Mohammed Nasrudeen, The Income Tax Officer, 871-B, Soth Street, Ammapatinam, Ward-3, Manamelgudi, Cuddalore. Pudhukotai District-614 617. [Pan: Azwpm 6686 K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N.V.Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 250Section 250(6)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

Alnavar Credit Souhardha Co-Operative Limited, Alnavar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Hubli

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

ITA 926/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavalnavar Credit Souhardaha The Income Tax Officer Co-Operative Ltd. Ward - 1(1), Hubli Vs. 01, Indira Nagar, Alanvar 581103 Pan – Aadaa0459P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav, J.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenges The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2002-23/1049609204(1) Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Cit(A)) Dated 10.02.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Co-Operative Society, Filed Its Return Of Income On 01.10.2018 Declaring Nil Income. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny, During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings The Ld Assessing Officer (Ao) Relying Upon The Judgement Of The Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Totagars Co-Operative Sale Society V. Acit [2023] 188 Taxmann.Com 282 (Sc) Disallowed The Deduction In Respect

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel

Section 250Section 250(6)

course. We observe that the Ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without dealing with the merits of the case. Section 250(6) of the Act provides that the Ld CIT(A) is bound to decide an appeal on merits. 3 Alnavar Credit Souhardaha Co-operative

Pankaj Prashant Sinha, Thane vs. Income Tax Offier Ward 3(2) Thane, Thane

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1728/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Learned Cit(A) Against The Assessment Order. Learned Cit(A) Dismissed The Assessee'S Appeal For Non Prosecution.

Section 131Section 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

Shrey Jitendra Panchal, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(4), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 330/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr. D.R

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

without deciding the issues on merit and the said order is non-speaking cryptic order which is not in compliance with provisions of Section 250(6) , and prayers were made to set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore back the matter to the file ... which is not in compliance with the provisions 6 I.T.A No. 330/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No. Shrey Jitendra Panchal v. ITO of section 250(6) of the Act. I have observed that there is deposit of Rs. 30,25,000/- by the assessee in the bank account

Alkaben Ketulkumar Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-3(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 287/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

issues on merit in accordance with law and order passed by the CIT(A) is not in consonance with the provisions of section 250(6). As per provisions of section 250(6), ld. CIT(A) has to state point for determination, his decision and reasoning thereof ... documents/details etc. by the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) is required and obligated to pass order in compliance with the provisions of section 250(6), as ld CIT(A) is required to pass reasoned and speaking order on merits in accordance with law. The appellate order passed

Casa Grand Builder Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp Circle -1(2), Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 933/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.933/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Casa Grand Builder Private Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ 5Th Floor, Npl Devi, Lb Road, Corporate Circle -1(2) Vs. Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-600 041. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-2758-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Reddy Prakash (Ca) (Virtual)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-06-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Reddy Prakash (CA) (Virtual)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) -Ld. DR

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

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी महावीर िसंह

Mourata Das, Malda vs. ITO, Ward - 3(1), Malda

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

ITA 642/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Gopal Ram Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prabir Guptachoudhury, Addl. CIT

Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 270ASection 56(2)(vii)

appeal ex-parte without giving any sufficient opportunity to the assessee and dismissed the appeal in limine against the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. The Ld. Counsel further submits that Ld. CIT(A) ought to have been held that the impugned addition of Rs.5,12,212/- made

Muroor Ramesh Nayak, Sullia vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Puttur

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

ITA 1098/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavmuroor Ramesh Nayak The Income Tax Officer 1/1, Muroor Beejathadka Ward - 1, Puttur Vs. Mandekolu, Sullia Tq. 574256 Pan – Ajjpn9644H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Srinivasa Kamath S., Ca Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 01.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav, J.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenges The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/2004-25/1064225940(1) Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Cit(A)) Dated 19.04.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Brief Fact Of The Case That That The Assessee, An Individual, Prior To His Retirement, Was An Employee Of Forest Department. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Impugned Year On 31.03.2018 Declaring An Income Of Rs.2,88,170/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny In Order To Verify The Source Of Cash Deposited During The Demonetisation Period. 3. During The Assessment Proceedings The Assessee While Attending The Proceedings, Filed A Written Reply Explaining The Source Of Cash Deposits. However, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Did Not Agree With The Replies Of The Assessee & Added An Amount Of Rs.11,00,000/- To The Returned Income.

For Appellant: Shri Srinivasa Kamath S., CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel

Section 250Section 250(6)

with that of the AO. In this case the CIT(A) has just dismissed the appeal of the Assessee ignoring the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, in our opinion, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have decide the appeal of the assessee on merits instead

Yudhishthir Dilip Khatau, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1887/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

Section 69A

Bhattacharya reported in 118 ITR 461 and other decisions without deciding the issue in dispute on merit. Under the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) is required to pass an order on merit even in case of non-compliance on the part

Prem Chand Yadav, Lucknow vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Lucknow - New

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

ITA 406/LKW/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow01 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2017-18 Prem Chand Yadav V. The Acit-1 1/374, Sector 1 Lucknow Gomti Nagar Extension Gomti Nagar, Lucknow Pan:Abqpy1283Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Dr Preeti Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 01 07 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 02 07 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr Preeti Singh, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 68

decided the appeal after discussing in detail, his reasons for agreeing with the assessment order. 8. As per provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, the Commissioner (Appeals) was obliged to dispose of the appeal in writing after stating the points for determination and to then pass an order ... such orders or vary it so as to either to enhance or to reduce the penalty. On cumulative consideration of the provisions of section 250(6) read with sections 250(4), 250(5), 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) and Explanation of section 251(2), it is concluded that

Premila Mukeshbhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1049/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Has Arisen From The Appellate Order Dated 16Th October, 2023 Passed By 2

For Appellant: Shri Parin S. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr. D.R

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 68Section 69A

assessee without deciding the issues on merit in accordance with law ex-parte in-limine , and there is no compliance of provisions of section 250(6) of the Act and it is prayed that the matter can be set aside to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication ... assessee has specifically raised ground of appeal that the appellate order passed by ld. CIT(A) is not in compliance of provisions of Section 250(6). The ld. Departmental Representative relied upon the order of the authorities below but fairly submitted that the matter can go back to the file

M/S. Gordhansingh S Rajpurohit, Navi Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Panvel

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

ITA 512/PUN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 68

without himself going into the merits of the case. Thus, in our view, his order is in violation of the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we deem it fit, in the interest of justice and fair