← 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)

Ramakrishna Rao, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Alipurduar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 541/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90

parte order dismissing the appeal of the assessee for the reason that the condonation of delay was not justified. We further note that 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

D S Srinivasa Setty Co, Shivamoga vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Tps Shimoga, Shivamoga

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

ITA 827/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT (DR)
Section 250(2)(a)Section 250(6)

condition precedent for the disposal of appeal on merits in Page 3 of 4 accordance with the scheme of Section 250(6). Therefore, irrespective of the non-appearance of the assessee before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) ought to have dealt with the issues so raised by the assessee

Skywards Kanakraj Developer, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Pune

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

ITA 725/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Skywards Kanakraj Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Pune. Developer, Office No.704, Vb Capital, Range Hills Road, Opp. Symphony Restaurant Shivaji Nagar, Pune- 411007. Pan : Acafs3003P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 31.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.06.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.03.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Lower Authorities Erred In Passing Ex-Parte Order & Erred In Not Deciding The Issue On The Merits Of The Case, This Action Is Being Violative Of Principal Of Natural Justice. Your Appellant Prays For Granting Opportunity Of Hearing Before Lower Authorities.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 40aSection 43B

allowed & appeal was dismissed without hearing to the assessee. It was also submitted that LD CIT(A)/NFAC was duty bound as per section 250(6) of the IT Act to decide each ground of appeal by a speaking order but LD CIT(A)/NFAC failed to decide each ground ... also find that LD CIT(A)/NFAC has not decided each ground of appeal by a speaking order which is mandated by section 250(6) of the IT Act. In our considered opinion LD CIT(A)/NFAC erred in not adjourning the hearing of the appeal when a specific request

Mukesh Lahu Jadhav, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Pune

ITA 542/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Pune11 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.542/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Mukesh Lalu Jadhav, V The Income Tax Officer, 92, Anand Park, It Road S Ward-2(1), Pune. Aundh, Pune – 411007. Pan: Afepj4215K Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 24.01.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Presumptive Turnover & Percentage Of Profit Respectively @ Rs.6,98,20,894/- & 8% I.E. Rs.55,85,672/-

Section 234ASection 234BSection 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

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

Accuscan Daignostic Service Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Pune

ITA 526/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.526/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Accuscan Daignostic Service V The Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, S Ward-1(1), Pune. 304, Rajat Apartmens, North Main Road, Lane-06, Koregaon Park, Pune – 411001. Pan: Aabca4647D Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 10/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 19.01.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. That, On Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Of Cit(A), Nfac Dated 19.01.2024 In Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Appellant Is Arbitrary, Erroneous, Contrary To Law & Is Opposed To The Principles Of Natural Justice, Equity & Fair Play. 2. That, On Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Accuscan Daignostic Service Pvt. Ltd., [A]

Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 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

Anil Rajaram Buchde, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Pune

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

ITA 271/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Pune11 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.271/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Anil Rajaram Buchde, V The Assistant Ap Marunji, S.No.32, Tal. S Commissioner Of Income Mulshi, Near Kirti Classique, Tax, Circle-2, Pune. Pune – 411057. Pan: Bhkpb4666F Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement /06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Dated 19.12.2023 For The A.Y.2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions & Scheme Of The Act, It Be Held That The Order Passed By First Appellate Authority, Without Providing Any Opportunity Of Being Heard, Is In Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice & Also In Violation Of The Express Directions Issued By The Hon'Ble Income-Tax Anil Rajaram Buchde [A]

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250(6)

।आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”ए” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A” :: PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL

Infotek Netalia Ltd, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle-11, Pune

ITA 1004/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1004/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Infotek Netalia Ltd., V The Acit, Commerzone, I T Park, S Circle-11, Pune. Yerawada, Pune – 411004. Pan: Aabci2205B Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Mr.Abhineet P For Prateek Jha – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 10/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 19.07.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Erred In Deciding The Appeal Of The Assessee Ex-Parte Without Granting The Assessee Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard. 2. The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Erred In Passing The Appellate Order Entirely Based On The Observations Of The Ld Ao & Without Appreciating That The Business Of The Assessee Company Was Closed & There Was No Employee To Handle The Income Tax Matters. Infotek Netalia Ltd., [A]

Section 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)

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

Dilip Ramanlal Doshi, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 4418/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2024AY 2014-15
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIDAL

Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(3), Bengaluru vs. Praveen Reddy (HUF), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 651/BANG/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sri Prasanna N. Uralal, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Parithivel V., D.R
Section 250(6)Section 50Section 54Section 54F

allowing deductions u/ s 50C and 54F without considering the merits of the case, which is not in accordance with the provisions of section 250(6).” Praveen Reddy (HUF), Bangalore Page 3 of 4 2.1 We have heard the both the parties on admission of additional grounds. In our opinion

M/S Mirc Electronics Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 4484/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2024AY 2017-18
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 270ASection 33DSection 35Section 35DSection 37(1)Section 3S

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL

J.R Agrovet, Khanna vs. DCIT, Centr Cir-1, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 633/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: None (Written Submission)For Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 250(6)Section 253Section 69Section 69A

they are aggrieved by the Order No. 10782/2018-19/IT/CIT(A)- 5/Ldh/2021-22 dt. 21/08/2023 of the Ld. CIT(A) passed under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The document identification number provided at last page of the said order dt. 21/08/2023 is ITBA/APL/M/250/23-24/1055256806(1) which is hereinafter referred

Shiksha Infotech Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 617/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Akshaya K.S., CAFor Respondent: Ms. Shamala .D.D, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 250(2)(a)Section 250(6)

under section 250(2)(a), is not a condition precedent for the disposal of appeal on merits in accordance with the scheme of Section 250(6). Therefore, irrespective of the non-appearance of the assessee before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) ought to have dealt with the issues

Shiksha Infotech Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 602/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Akshaya K.S., CAFor Respondent: Ms. Shamala .D.D, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 250(2)(a)Section 250(6)

under section 250(2)(a), is not a condition precedent for the disposal of appeal on merits in accordance with the scheme of Section 250(6). Therefore, irrespective of the non-appearance of the assessee before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) ought to have dealt with the issues

Babli Devi D/O Sh. Anoop Singh, Kurukshetra vs. ITO-Ward-1, Kurukshetra

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

ITA 723/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: PendingITAT Chandigarh06 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 723/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Babli Devi, Vs. The Ito, बनाम Ward No.1, D/O Shri Anoop Singh, Kurukshetra Nirankari Colony, Vilalge Babin, District Kurukshetra 136156 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Bdvpd8550R अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent

For Appellant: Sh. Jatin Kohli, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 250(6)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘A’, CHANDIGARH

Mohammed Mazharuddin Mohd Raizuddin Mohd Raizuddin, Aurangabad vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(7), Aurangabad

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

ITA 784/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.784/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Deogadkar
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. ASTHA

Gurukrupa Developers, Pune vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7, Pune

Appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 510/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri N.C. LahotiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 144Section 154Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SATBEER

Ratnaveni Yeluri, Nizamabad vs. ITO., Ward-2, Nizamabad

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

ITA 482/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 482/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ratnaveni Yeluri, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bodhan Ward-2, [Pan No. Acopy5575A] Nizamabad अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri V. Siva Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Kumaran, DR
Section 250Section 250(6)

limine without referring to the merits of the case, points to be considered or giving any reasons thereunder. 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. In these circumstances, affording an opportunity to the assessee to prosecute the appeal before the learned

Kishore Singh Rajpurohit, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-7(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 369/HYD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Smt. S. Sandhya, ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Kumaran, DR
Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)

appeal diligently and on that ground, learned AR prayed for an opportunity in the interest of justice. 3. She further submitted that under section 250(6) of the Act, the learned CIT(A) shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon, the reason for the decision ... Tribunal, dismissed the appeal in limine and confirmed the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer. 7. 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 for determination

Mohammed Ragivus Sebtain, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-9(4), Hyderabd

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

ITA 334/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri R. Kumaran, DR
Section 250Section 250(6)

open for the learned CIT(A) to deal with the matter on merits, instead of dismissing the same. 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, 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. In these circumstances, affording an opportunity to the assessee to prosecute the appeal before the learned

M/S Happy Steel Private Ltd., Ludhiana vs. DCIT CC-2, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 398/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271Section 271A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’, CHANDIGARH