“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 Ajinkya Mahadev Kanchan, Pune vs. ITO Ward-43(3), Pune

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

ITA 1675/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri B. C. Malakar &For Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale

Section 250Section 250(6)

appeal raised by the appellant and without point wise discussion and analysis in the appellate order in violation of the provisions of section 250(6) of the IT Act, 1961 wherein it was categorically stated that the appeal was required to be disposed of "in writing and shall state ... passed by merely quoting the entire Assessment Order in appellate order in violation of principles of natural justice and further in violation of section 250(6) of the Act being arbitrary, illegal and bad-in- law be quashed/set-aside. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Samsher Singh, Renukoot vs. Income Tax Officer - III(4), Sonbhadra

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

ITA 111/VNS/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi05 Jan 2026AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 147Section 250(6)

passing a speaking order on merits of the case. This is in violation of statutory duty of learned CIT(A), as contained in Section 250(6) of the Act to pass speaking order for determination. Further, the assessment order was also passed ex-parte without providing reasonable opportunity

Marut Paper Products Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle - 1, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for

ITA 393/LKW/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee and duly adhering to requirements of passing a speaking order on merits which contained in Section 250(6) of the Act. All grounds of appeal are treated as disposed of in accordance with law with aforesaid directions and order. 8. In the result

Virendra Vijaysingh Pardeshi, Nashik vs. Income Tax Office Ward 2(1) Nashik, Nashik

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

ITA 2620/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2620/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Virendra Vijaysingh Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Nashik. Pardeshi, Row House No.10, Swapnpurti Cooperative Housing Society, Kalptaru Nagar, Nashik- 422006. Pan : Anhpp9809L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Pardeshi Revenue By : Shri Ganesh B. Budruk Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.09.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Cit-Appeals Erred In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.2500000 Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 69A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, Merely For Non-Appearance Relying Solely On Procedural Default & Ignoring That Appellate Proceedings Are Continuation Of Assessment & Must Be Decided On Merits Based On Record & Written Submissions Already Filed.

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh PardeshiFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk

Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 271DSection 68Section 69A

initio as it has been passed ex parte without adjudicating on merits despite detailed grounds and statement of facts on record, violating section 250(6) of the Act which mandates a speaking order on each ground of appeal Your appellant prays for deletion of entire addition. Your appellant craves

George Molakal Mathew, Pune vs. ITO International Tax Ward-3, Pune

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

ITA 2236/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: or during the hearing of the Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 3

facts of the case, we find force in the arguments of Ld. Counsel of the assessee that in the light of section 250(6) of the IT Act, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC was required to decide each and every ground either factual or legal separately by a speaking order. Accordingly

Mr Bharat Datta Nakhava, Raigad vs. ITO WD-3, Panvel

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

ITA 1982/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manish Sinha (Virtual)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Naveen Timber Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle, Karnal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3569/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Amitabh Shuklaita No. 3569/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year: 2016-17 M/S Naveen Timber Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, C/O R. C. Rai & Associates, Circle, 203, Akashdeep Building, 26A, Karnal, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccn6399L Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2016-17 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1065533916(1) Dated 11.06.2024, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. Amitabh

Suyambu, Madurai vs. ITO, Ncc-1, Madurai

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

ITA 3750/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy. Sshri Suyambu, 56A, West Perumal Maistry Street, Madurai-625 001. [Pan: Axaps 6998 J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement V. The Ito, Non Corporate Circle-1, Madurai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Ms. Vaibhavi S.U., Advocate : Ms. Babitha, Jcit : 12.12.2025 : 02.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: Stay Petition No.123/Chny/2025 &

Section 148Section 69

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'बी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक

Progressive Surface Systems Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Circle 13(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6699/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Prusethprogressive Surface Vs. Circle 13(1)(2) Systems Private Limited Aayakar Bhawan, Maharishi Karve Road, 3-B, Udyog Nagar, S.V. Churchgate, Road, Malad West, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400064. Pan/Gir No: Aaccp9075D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69C

simply stating that the addition is confirmed. We find that the CIT(A) has not passed the order as per the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act and dismissed the appeal on the wrong ground of 2 ITA No.6699/MUM/2025/AY 2013-14 Progressive Surface Systems Private Limited non-compliance ... order passed by the CIT(A) is clearly in violation of the express provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, which provide that the appellate order of the CIT(A) is to state the points arising in appeal, the decision of the authority there on and the reasons

Hemat Maldebhai Karangiya, Jamnagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3), Jamnagar

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

ITA 463/RJT/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Ms. Rutvika, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR

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

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, we are of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before

Nitin Dwivedi, Hardoi vs. CIT(A), Hardoi

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

ITA 362/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Nitin Dwivedi V. The Ito – 3(3) Avas Vikas Colony Hardoi Prahladpuri, Hardoi (U.P) Tan/Pan:Ajfpd9057Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250(6)Section 271ASection 69A

both on facts and in law, in dismissing the appeal for alleged non-compliance, without adjudicating the issues on merits, in violation of section 250(6) and the settled principles of natural justice. Addition of 48,79,382 u/s 69A unjustified The CIT(A) confirmed the entire addition made

Raj Kumar Singh, Patna vs. ITO, Ward-6(4), Patna

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

ITA 341/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 250

taken at ₹ Nil. Even before the Ld. CIT(A), no details were filed and the appeal was decided ex parte. 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

Gita Sharma, Durgapur vs. I.T.O., Ward - 2(4), Durgapur

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

ITA 2267/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

made, gone through the facts of the case and perused the record and the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 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

Integrated Service Point Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-2(4), Chennai

ITA 1883/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon'Ble Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23 Integrated Service Point Ltd., (Formerly Integrated Service Point Vs. Pvt. Ltd.,) The Dy./Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. 6C, 6Th Floor, Gaiety Palace I/L, Blackers Road, Anna Road H.O., Chennai - 600 002. Pan: Aaaci 9527P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1874, 1876 & 1879/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23 The Dy./Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. Integrated Service Point Ltd., (Formerly Integrated Service Point Pvt. Ltd.,) Vs. 6C, 6Th Floor, Gaiety Palace I/L, Blackers Road, Anna Road H.O., Chennai - 600 002. Pan: Aaaci 9527P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. Y. Sridhar, Fca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr. Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषण की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 : 30.12.2025 :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Mr. Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 134(4)Section 250

Integrated Service Point Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai

Accordingly, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos. 1881, 1882, and 1883/Chny/2025 for A.Ys. 2016-17, 2019-20, and 2022-23 are allowed

ITA 1882/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23

For Appellant: Mr. Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 134(4)Section 250

Upon considering the Grounds of Appeal and the Statement of Facts, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai, vide order passed under section 250(6) dated 11.04.2025 (DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025- 26/1075602764(1)), granted relief to the assessee and, accordingly, treated the appeal for A.Y. 2019-20 as partly ... additional income. 84. The real issue arising from these grounds, however, is whether the ld. CIT(A), in the order passed under section 250(6), had held the seized records to be unreliable. It is evident that the seized material constituted the fulcrum of the assessee’s disclosure, which

Integrated Service Point Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai

ITA 1881/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon'Ble Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23 Integrated Service Point Ltd., (Formerly Integrated Service Point Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd.,) The Dy./Asst. Commissioner Of Central Circle-2(4), 6C, 6Th Floor, Gaiety Palace I/L, Blackers Road, Anna Road H.O., Chennai - 600 002. Chennai. Pan: Aaaci 9527P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1874, 1876 & 1879/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23 The Dy./Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. Integrated Service Point Ltd., (Formerly Integrated Service Point Vs. Pvt. Ltd.,) 6C, 6Th Floor, Gaiety Palace I/L, Blackers Road, Anna Road H.O., Chennai - 600 002. Pan: Aaaci 9527P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. Y. Sridhar, Fca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr. Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 घोषण की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2025 :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Mr. Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 134(4)Section 250

ACIT, Chennai vs. Integrated Service Point Limited, Anna Nagar

Accordingly, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos. 1881, 1882, and 1883/Chny/2025 for A.Ys. 2016-17, 2019-20, and 2022-23 are allowed

ITA 1879/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

For Appellant: Mr. Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 134(4)Section 250

ACIT, Nungambakkam vs. Integrated Service Point Limited, Anna Nagar

ITA 1876/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon'Ble Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23 Integrated Service Point Ltd., (Formerly Integrated Service Point Vs. Pvt. Ltd.,) The Dy./Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. 6C, 6Th Floor, Gaiety Palace I/L, Blackers Road, Anna Road H.O., Chennai - 600 002. Pan: Aaaci 9527P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1874, 1876 & 1879/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23 The Dy./Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. Integrated Service Point Ltd., (Formerly Integrated Service Point Vs. Pvt. Ltd.,) 6C, 6Th Floor, Gaiety Palace I/L, Blackers Road, Anna Road H.O., Chennai - 600 002. Pan: Aaaci 9527P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. Y. Sridhar, Fca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr. Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 घोषण की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2025 :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Mr. Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 134(4)Section 250

Upon considering the Grounds of Appeal and the Statement of Facts, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai, vide order passed under section 250(6) dated 11.04.2025 (DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025- 26/1075602764(1)), granted relief to the assessee and, accordingly, treated the appeal for A.Y. 2019-20 as partly ... additional income. 84. The real issue arising from these grounds, however, is whether the Id. CIT(A), in the order passed under section 250(6), had held the seized records to be unreliable. It is evident that the seized material constituted the fulcrum of the assessee's disclosure, which

ACIT, Nunagambakkam vs. Integrated Service Point Limited, Anna Nagar

ITA 1874/CHNY/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon'Ble Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23 Integrated Service Point Ltd., (Formerly Integrated Service Point Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd.,) The Dy./Asst. Commissioner Of Central Circle-2(4), 6C, 6Th Floor, Gaiety Palace I/L, Blackers Road, Anna Road H.O., Chennai - 600 002. Pan: Aaaci 9527P Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1874, 1876 & 1879/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23 The Dy./Asst. Commissioner Of Integrated Service Point Ltd., Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. (Formerly Integrated Service Point Vs. Pvt. Ltd.,) 6C, 6Th Floor, Gaiety Palace I/L, Blackers Road, Anna Road H.O., Chennai - 600 002. Pan: Aaaci 9527P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. Y. Sridhar, Fca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By Mr. Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement 13.10.2025 30.12.2025 - : 2 -:

For Appellant: Mr. Y. Sridhar, FCA

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 134(4)Section 250

Upon considering the Grounds of Appeal and the Statement of Facts, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai, vide order passed under section 250(6) dated 11.04.2025 (DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025- 26/1075602764(1)), granted relief to the assessee and, accordingly, treated the appeal for A.Y. 2019-20 as partly ... additional income. 84. The real issue arising from these grounds, however, is whether the Id. CIT(A), in the order passed under section 250(6), had held the seized records to be unreliable. It is evident that the seized material constituted the fulcrum of the assessee's disclosure, which

Dharamveer Rathore, Guna vs. Income Tax Officer Guna, Guna

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 439/AGR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

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

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

Appeals) has passed ex parte order without any discussion on merits, which is not in consonance with the spirit of section 250(6) of the Act, wherein learned CIT(Appeals) was expected to state the points for determination, decision thereon and the reasons for the decision. In such circumstances