← 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)

Shree Prabhu Petrochemicals Private Limited, Aurangabad vs. The Income Tax -1(5), Aurangabad

The appeal is ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE

ITA 511/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 511/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Shree Prabhu Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. 167, Cidco Colony, S.O., Shivaji Nagar-431003. Pan : Aarcs8700P . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr Ajaykumar Kesari [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 24Section 250Section 270A

NFAC with a direction deal therewith de-nova in accordance with applicable law and pass a speaking order in terms of section 250(6) of the Act on the basis of material already placed on records by the appellant assessee. Ergo ordered accordingly. 11. In result, the appeal is ALLOWED

Rajani Ratnakar Kulkarni, Ichalkaranji vs. ITO, Ward-1, Ichalkaranji

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 439/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshaliनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Rajani Ratnakar Kulkarni Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Gat No.171/189/1, Kamala Ichalkaranji Nehru Hsg Society, Nr Laikar Chitra Mandir Kabnoor Vasahat, Ichalkaranji – 416115 Pan : Aljpk9201H Appellant Respondent

Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

addition(s) in his re-assessment dated 22.03.2022, has been passed ex-parte. And that too, without having complied with the rigor of section 250(6) of the Act requiring him to first frame points of determination followed by a detailed adjudication thereupon. 3. Mr. Nayak vehemently argued that ... page 7 of the lower appellate order. Be that it may, he fails to rebut the foregoing factual position of non compliance to section 250(6) hereinabove. Faced with the situation, we deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee‟s various substantive grounds raised

Sahil Enterprises, Ratnagiri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Ratnagiri

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

ITA 123/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT
Section 250(6)Section 68

NFAC has simply dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution and has not decided the issue on merits as per the provisions of section 250(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961 according to which the order of CIT(A) / NFAC disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall ... decided the issue on merits but has simply dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution, which is against the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. We find some force in the above arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. It is an admitted fact that

The Shahabad Coop. Sugar Mills, Shahabad vs. ACIT, Circle, Kurukshetra

The appeal is disposed off accordingly as aforesaid

ITA 1491/CHANDI/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri Varun Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 250(6)Section 253Section 36(1)(VA)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

being aggrieved by the order dt. 06/09/2018 in respect of A.Y. 2008-09 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), Karnal under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is hereinafter referred to as the impugned order. 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal in Form

Sanjeev Kumar Goyal, Fatehabad vs. DCIT, CC-2, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 80/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: This Hon’Ble Tribunal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Amended From Time To Time. 2. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 20/01/2023 In Appeal No. 10853/2018-19/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2021-22 For The A.Y. 2019-20 Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Was Dismissed. Therefore The Present Second Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Before Us Against The Aforesaid Order Dt. 20/01/2023 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Order.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishaba Marwaha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 250(6)Section 253Section 68

order of the Ld. CIT(A) dt. 20/01/2023 in Appeal No. 10853/2018-19/IT/CIT(A)-5/Ldh/2021-22 for the A.Y. 2019-20 under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which was dismissed. Therefore the present second appeal under section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 before us against

Rajiv Kumar Goyal, Dhuri vs. DCIT, CC-2, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 79/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: This Hon’Ble Tribunal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Amended From Time To Time. 2. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dated 03/02/2023 In Appeal No. 10850/2018-19/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2021-22 For A.Y. 2019-20 Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Was Dismissed. Therefore The Present Second Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Before Us Against The Aforesaid Order Dt. 03/02/2023 Which Is Hereiafter Referred To As The Impugned Order. Factual Matrix 3. The Assessee Had For The Relevant Year I.E; A.Y. 2019-20 Was Also Engaged In The Same Business I.E; Manufacturing Of Pvc Pipes & Had Filed

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishaba Marwaha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. D.R
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 250(6)Section 253

aggrieved by order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 03/02/2023 in appeal no. 10850/2018-19/IT/CIT(A)-5/Ldh/2021-22 for A.Y. 2019-20 under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which was dismissed. Therefore the present second appeal under section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 before

M/S. Shakti Infra, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward- 1(2)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 296/AHD/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Shakti Infra, Vs. Ff/14, Shreem Complex, Income-Tax Officer, Opp. Mahindra Gujarat Circle 1(2)(1) Tractors, Vishvamitri, Vadodara, Vadodara Gujarat – 390011 Pan : Abmfs 3957 M अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sushil Kumar Katiar, Sr Dr तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.04.2024 सुनवाई क" क" तारीख सुनवाई सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22.05.2024 घोषणा घोषणा घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Siddhartha Nautiyal: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 28.02.2023, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2009-10. 2. The Facts, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm & Is Engaged In The Business Of Construction & Development. In The Present Case, The Proceedings Under Section 147 Of The Act Were Initiated By Issuing A Show-Cause Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act Dated 30Th March 2016. The Assessment Was Finally Framed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 147 Of The Act Dated 16Th December 2016 After Making The Following Addition:

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Katiar, Sr DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

that the learned CIT(A) has not considered the statement of facts produced by the assessee before learned CIT(A). The provisions of section 250(6) of the Act require the learned CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal filed by the assessee by way of speaking order with reasoning

Patodia Forgings and Gears Limited, Pune vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune

The appeal is ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE

ITA 368/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.368/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Patodia Forgings & Gears Ltd. 105/2, Village Mahalunge, Chakan Rd., Chakan, Pune-410501 Pan : Aaecp9266C . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Sarvesh Khandelwal [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Sourabh Nayak [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(1)(a)Section 80I

NFAC with a direction deal therewith de-nova in accordance with applicable law and pass a speaking order in terms of section 250(6) of the Act. Needless to state the Ld. NFAC shall accord not more than three opportunities to the assessee to represent his case by filing

Commitment Finance Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 2(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 102/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 250(6)

point of determination and his decision thereon and the reason for taking the said decision as mandated by the provision of section 250(6) of the Act which apparently has not been done by the appellate authority. Besides, we also note that the AO has recorded a finding in para

Rajib Chakraborty, Kolkata vs. ITO- Ward-30(3), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1279/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 253(3)Section 253(5)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “ए’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार

Malhan Constructions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 6(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is dismissed

ITA 452/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Anshul, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 250(6)Section 40

appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.11.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Delhi under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to ‘the Act’) arising out of the assessment order dated 31.03.2016 passed by the DCIT

Shri Sumermal Bhimraj Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Matru Mandir Tardeo Road

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

ITA 3213/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh, Shri Sumermal Bhimraj Vs. Ito, 19(3)(4) Mehta, 3Rd Floor, Ardeshir Matru Mandir, Dady X Lane, C.P. Tank, Tardeo Road, Sabu Bhuvan, Maharashtra - 400007 Mumbai – 400004 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aahpm2416K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Krishna Kumar
Section 36(1)

250 of the Act on the ground that assessee has failed to make compliance at the time of appellate proceedings. We consider that Section 250(6) of the Act contemplate that ld. CIT(A) would determine point in dispute and therefore record reason on such point in support

Sriman Stocks Managements Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward - 2(1), Thane

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

ITA 2911/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh, Sriman Stocks Vs. Ito Ward-2(1) Management Pvt. Ltd. B Wing, Room No. 26, 302/B, Garden Court, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Temba Hospital Road, Road No. 16, Wagle Bhayander West, Thane, Industrial Estate, Thane, Maharashtra – 401101 Maharashtra – 400604 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aancs3834N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Ridhisha JainFor Respondent: Krishna Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

consideration the material placed in the assessment record nor the assessee has made compliance during the course of appellate proceedings. We consider that Section 250(6) of the Act contemplate that ld. CIT(A) would determine point in dispute and therefor record reason on such point in support

M/S Ganesh Builders, Panchkula vs. DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the respective appeals and stay applications are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 452/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR &
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 251Section 251(1)Section 271

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “ए” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING

M/S Luxmi Builders, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Chandigarh

In the result, the respective appeals and stay applications are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 451/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR &
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 251Section 251(1)Section 271

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “ए” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Pune vs. Enterprisedb Software India Private Limited, Pune

ITA 989/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 989/Pun/2023 & Co No. 008/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Pune . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Rajendra Agiwal [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Sonal Sonkavde [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 1Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(1)Section 246A(1)Section 250Section 253(2)Section 40

required to state point of determination, its decision thereon and clear reasons therefore in terms of section 250(6) of the Act. 8. In the instant case, we find no whisper in the impugned order about (a) as to whether impugned expense/payment i.e. License Fee shared by the assessee ... deposited with the ex-chequer. The ground number 2 adjudicated also badly lacks the compliance in terms of section 250(6) of the Act. ITAT-Pune Page 7 of 8 DCIT Vs Enterprises Software India Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 989/PUN/2023 & Co No. 008/PUN/2024 9. It is a trite

Maheshkumar Hargovind Goyal, Nagpur vs. Ward 1(2), Nagpur

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

ITA 322/NAG/2023[AY 2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 May 2024

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

file of the learned CIT(A). Upon verification of records and perusal of the material placed before us, we find that under section 250(6) of the Act, the learned CIT(A) while disposing the appeal in writing shall state the points for determination. The decision thereon and reasons

Ravindra Bhausaheb Madhavai, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Nashik

Appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 675/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Kalpesh Kumar Rupavatiya
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No.675/PUN./2024

Ganesh Vishwas Dimbale, Sarata vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circl, Satara

Appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 294/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: CA Sharad A. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 147Section 249(4)(a)Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE [THROUGH HYBRID HEARING] BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Guggilam Ravi Kumar, Tirupati vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1), Tirupati

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

ITA 361/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Suresh, 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. If the request of the learned AR is granted, affording an opportunity to the assessee to prosecute