← 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)

Chintu Realties Pvt Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ahmedabad

Accordingly, the appeal of the Ld. AO is allowed

ITA 354/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Rajan Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri J L Bhatia, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250

Commissioner (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in not passing the speaking order u/s 250 rws 254 as per section 250(6) of the Act. 9. That on the facts, law and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeal) was not justified in confirming the additions made ... Additions confirmed vide order u/s 250 rws 254 dt 16-03-2023 are arbitrary, illegal and contrary to letter and spirit of section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore order passed, to be set aside and the addition confirmed to be deleted 10. The observation on page

Jnmc Emp Cr Co Op Society, Wardha vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 87/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir Atal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH : NAGOUR [THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING AT ITAT : PUNE] BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH

Kutchi Sarvodaya Nagar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemptions) - 1(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 4127/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailkutchi Sarvodaya Nagar Vs. Income Tax Officer P.L. Lokhande Marg, (Exemptions)-1(4) Near Narayan Guru High Piramal Chambers, School, Govandi, Lal Baug, Parel, Mumbai – 400043 Mumbai - 400012 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatk0678E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Pradip Kapasi Respondent By : P.D. Chougule Date Of Hearing 22.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 03.05.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac For A.Y. 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “I. Ground No. 1: Failure To Issue Notice U/S. 250 The Id. Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Failing To Issue Notice For Furnishing Written Submissions And/Or Hearing Of Appeal As Required U/S 250(1), (2) & (6B) Read With The Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2021 Issued Under Notification No 139/2021 Dt 28.12.2021 Of The Act & In Particular Not Allowing The Appellant To Furnish Its Submissions. Your Appellant Prays That An Order Passed Without Issuing Notice U/S. 250 Be Quashed Ii Ground No. 2: Failure To Give Opportunity Of Hearing By Cit(A) The Id. Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing An Order In Appeal Without Giving An Opportunity Of Hearing, Orally Or Virtually, As Required By The Provisions Of The Act. Rules, Scheme, Notifications & Circulars & The Decisions Of The Courts & In Particular The Decision In The Cases Of Ba Continuum India (P.) Ltd., 125 Taxmann.Com 180 (Bom.) & Sanjay Aggarwal, 127 Taxmann.Com

For Appellant: Pradip KapasiFor Respondent: P.D. Chougule
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234ASection 234BSection 246ASection 250Section 250(1)

that the ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the appeal of the assessee on merit after considering the submission filed by the assessee. Section 250(6) contemplates that ld. CIT(A) would determine point in dispute and therefore record reason of such points in support of his conclusion. Therefore

Mangalbai Rajkumar Marewar, Latur vs. ITO, Ward-3, Latur

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 272/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta
Section 144Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No.272/PUN./2024

Late Hirabai Harish Borhade (L/H Deodatta Harish Borhade, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(5), Pune

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1027/PUN/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Sharad VazeFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta
Section 147Section 2(29)Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No.1027/PUN./2023

Sukhjit Singh, Sri Muktsar Sahib vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana

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

ITA 554/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 May 2024AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 69B

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “बी” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING

Sidaray Namdev Biradar, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Pune

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 65/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta
Section 144Section 249(3)Section 250(6)

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

Rajendra Marutrao Gadepatil, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-9(5), Pune

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 263/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta
Section 147Section 250(6)

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

Vinay Kumar Shukla, Lucknow vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Lucknow

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 37/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Lucknow30 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144BSection 147Section 250(6)Section 69A

that he is not interested in submitting any reply. Hence the addition made by the A.O. is confirmed. This ground is dismissed.” Under section 250(6) of the IT Act, the learned CIT(A) is duty bound to dispose of the appeal through a speaking order stating the points ... reason for the decision. The summary order passed by learned CIT(A) is clearly deficient having regard to the requirements of aforementioned section 250(6) of the IT Act. (C) We also find on perusal of the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) that the assessee was not provided

Jai Shriram Sahakari Path Sansthan Mariyadit, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 6(4), Pune

ITA 173/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.173/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Jai Shriram Sahakari Pat The Income Tax Officer, Sansthan Maryadit, V Ward-6(4), Pune. 1085, Bhawani Peth, S Padmashali Puram, Kamgar Middan, Nr Watar Tank, Pune – 411042. Pan: Aacaj7371A Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 29/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30/04/2024 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 10.10.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Learned Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming & The Ito, Ward 6(4), Pune (Learned Ao) Erred In Law & On Facts In Assessing Appellant'S Total Income At Rs.1,17,73,000/- By Making Addition Of The Same Amount U/S 69A Of The Ita, 1961. 2. Learned Cit(A) & The Learned Ao Erred In Law & On Facts In Making Addition U/S 69A Without Appreciating That Cash Deposit By The Appellant Is Not Income Of The Appellant As The Same Amount Was Collected From Msedcl Consumers On Behalf Of Msedcl & Back-To-Back Transferred To Msedcl & Jai Shriram Sahakari Path Sansthan Maryadit [A]

Section 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 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

Shriniwasa Construction, Amravati vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Amravati

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

ITA 297/NAG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani a/wFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Maratha
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 40Section 40A(3)

same time, it is also seen that the learned CIT(A) has not decided the appeal on merit. As per the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination

M/S Swapna Enterprises, Kanhangad vs. JCIT Circle 1, Kannur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 103/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Keshav Dubeyswapana Enterprises Jt. Cit, Circle - 1 Rahmath Shopping Complex Kannur Range Nr. Petrol Pump Vs. Kannur 671315 [Pan: Aajfsa3376] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jacob, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Shri Keshav Dubey, Judicial

Amudha Raghothaman, Ullagaram vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeals Centre

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

ITA 1453/CHNY/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1453/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 V. Amudha Raghothaman, The Asst. Commissioner- No.14/4, Kariyan Ponnan Street, Of Income Tax, Venkatesa Nagar, Ullagaram, Non-Corporate Range-22, Chennai-600 091. Tambaram. [Pan: Afvpa 2515 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr.M.Sathya Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri D.Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

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

Soni Ramniwas Bankatlal HUF, Pune vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 5, Pune, Shankar Sheth Road Swargate

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 404/PUN/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta
Section 147Section 250(6)

1 ITA.No.404/PUN./2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL

Sudhir Rajaram Sonawane, Satana vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 379/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta
Section 147Section 249(3)Section 250(6)

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

Jansewa Nagri Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit, Jalgaon vs. The Income Tax Office, Ward 1(4), Jalgaon

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 374/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AvachatFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta
Section 144Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No.374/PUN./2024

Latabai Kacharu Tambere, Nashik vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 149/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta
Section 147Section 250(6)

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

Vinayak Tukaram Koli, Panvel vs. ITO, Ward-5, Panvel

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1416/PUN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Jha
Section 147Section 250(6)

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

Chandra Shekar Reddy Lattupalli, Ranga Reddy District vs. ITO Ward-9(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 335/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 335/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Chandra Shekar Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer, Lattupalli, Ward-9(4), Manchal Mandal, Hyderabad Ranga Reddy Dist., [Pan No. Adcpl3436A] अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar Shukla, DR
Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)

Assessing Officer, and on this premise alone, learned CIT(A) confirmed the assessment order and dismissed the appeal. 6. 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

Shri Mahendrakumar H. Adhvaryu, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(3), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1814/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vs. Mahendrakumar H. Adhvaryu, Income Tax Officer, A-8, Classic Palace, Talav Gate, Ward-3(3)(3), Bodakdev, Ahmedabad-380054 Ahmedabad Pan : Aezpa 8877 Q अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Anurag Chandra, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld. Cit(A)” For Short] Dated 28.08.2019, Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], Pertaining To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. The Grounds Raised Are As Under:- “1. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Giving A Reasonable Opportunity Of Hearing To The Appellant Which Is In Violation Of The Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Stepping Into The Shoes Of The Appellant To Confirm The Additions. 3. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming Addition Of Cash In Hand Of Rs.62,76,216/- U/S 68 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Anurag Chandra, Sr DR
Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as "Ld. CIT(A)” for short] dated 28.08.2019, under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”], pertaining to the Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. 2. The grounds raised