“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)

The DCIT, Central Circle-2, Vadodara vs. Shri Pravinchandra Ranchhodbhai Patel, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 46/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pravinchandra The Deputy Commissioner Of Ranchhodbhai Patel, Income-Tax, Vs. 52, Sarvodaya Society, Central Circle-2, Nizampura, Vadodara Vadodara Pan : Acppp 2695 F अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Jigar Adhyaru, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15.02.2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta:

For Appellant: Shri Jigar Adhyaru, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "ायपीठ ‘C’ अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE MRS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA

The Mehsana Urban Co. Operative Bank Ltd., Mehsana vs. The ACIT, Mehsana Circle, Mehsana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITANo

ITA 146/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

separate orders passed by the ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Ld.CIT(A)”] under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) of even dated i.e. 13.02.2023 pertaining to the above three assessment years

The Mehsana Urban Co. Operative Bank Ltd., Mehsana vs. The ACIT, Mehsana Circle, Mehsana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITANo

ITA 145/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

The Mehsana Urban Co. Operative Bank Ltd., Mehsana vs. The ACIT, Mehsana Circle, Mehsana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITANo

ITA 144/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

Mseb Enngineers Consumer Co-Op Society Ltd, Sangli vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Sangli

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1373/PUN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 1373/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mseb Engineers Consumer Co-Op Society Ltd. 100 Ft. Road, Opp Sarovar Hotel, Vishrambag, Sangli Pan : Aaaam5424D . . . . . . . . अपऩलधर्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Income Tax Office, Ward-1(1), Sangli . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Mr Sharad Vaze [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. DR’]

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

॥आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण, पुणे ‚ए‛ न्यायपीठ,पुणे में॥ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE ‘A’ BENCH, PUNE BEFORE HON

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune vs. Ctr Manufacturing Industries Private Limited, Pune

The appeal of the Revenue stands DISMISSED as WITHDRAWN

ITA 1005/PUN/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 1005/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune . . . . . . . अपऩलधर्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Rajendra Agiwal [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. DR’]

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

M/S.Focuz Corporation P.Ltd, Cochin vs. The ACIT Circle-1(1), Cochin

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 45/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Judicial

M/S.Focuz Corporation P.Ltd, Cochin vs. The ACIT Circle-1(1), Cochin

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 44/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Judicial

M/S.Focuz Corporation P.Ltd, Cochin vs. The ACIT Circle-1(1), Cochin

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 43/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Judicial

M/S.Focuz Corporation P.Ltd, Cochin vs. The ACIT Circle-1(1), Cochin

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 42/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Judicial

M/S.Focuz Corporation P.Ltd, Cochin vs. The ACIT Circle-1(1), Cochin

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 41/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Judicial

M/S.Focuz Corporation P.Ltd, Cochin vs. The ACIT Circle-1(1), Cochin

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 40/COCH/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Feb 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Judicial

Shrikant Gajanan Vyavahare, Kamatwade vs. Income Tax Officer, Nashik

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 893/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.893/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shrikant Gajanan Vyavahare, The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.06, S.No.16/3/1, V Nashik. Samarth Bungla, Near S Modakeshwar Mandir, Modakeshwar Nagar, Kamatwade, Nashik – 422010. Pan: Aakpv1138N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Miss Abhilasha Sanjay Pawar – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 14/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 14/02/2024 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], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.09.2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit Is Not Justified In Levying Penalty U/S 271(L)(C) Of Rs.82,093/- On The Ground That The Assesses Has Furnish Inaccurate Particulars Of Income Without Appreciating That The Said Levy Of Penalty Was Not Justified In Law. Shrikant Gajanan Vyavahare [A]

Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 271

report the result of the same to him as found in Section 250(4) of the Act. 3 Shrikant Gajanan Vyavahare [A] 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

Mr Sunil Shankar Bandal, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward.2(5), Pune

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1105/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1105/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Mr.Sunil Shankar Bandal, The Income Tax Officer, At Post Bavdhan Bk, Taluka V Ward-2(5), Pune. Mulshi, Pune – 411021. S Pan: Ajkpb8627M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 14/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 14/02/2024 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], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 22.08.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions & Scheme Of The Act It Be Held That The Assessment Proceedings Initiated U/S 147 Of The Act Are Time Barred Since The Notice Issued U/S 148 Of The Act Is Served After 6 Years. Accordingly, The Assessment Proceedings So Initiated Be Kindly Quashed & Appellant Be Granted Just & Proper Relief In This Respect. Mr. Sunil Shankar Bandal [A]

Section 129Section 147Section 148Section 250

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

M/S Sai Granite Exporters & Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessement Centre, Delhi, Mumbai

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

ITA 3463/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri. Vijaykumar TiwariFor Respondent: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh, SR.AR

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

side, without any discussion on merit , without any discussion on merit of the matter involved. U of the matter involved. Under provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, of section 250(6) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) is require he Ld. CIT(A) is required to pass

Andromeda Energy Technologies Private Limited, Secunderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 42/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 42/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Andromeda Energy Dcit, Circle-1(1), Technologies Private Limited, Vs. Hyderabad Secunderabad [Pan: Aacca8341B]

For Appellant: Shri Sai Sarikonda, AR for Shri Ravi BharadwajFor Respondent: Shri M. Naveen Kumar, DR

Section 250Section 250(6)

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

Lovely Promoters Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 770/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Taparia (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) a

Section 127Section 127(1)Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 153C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Vishwas Shukla, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Ahmedabad vs. Midvalley Healthcare Services Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 656/AHD/2023[2010]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Feb 2024

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Midvalley Healthcare Services The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Vs. 51, 5Th Floor, New York Tower, Central Circle-2(3), S.G Road, Thaltej, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad, Gujarat Pan : Aaecm 7777 K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07.02.2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 12.06.2023 Passed U/S 250(6) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11. 2. The Only Effective Ground Raised In This Appeal Is Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.4,30,72,029/- Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act, By Not Appreciating That The Department Is Presently In Appeal Before The High Court Of Gujarat Against The Order Passed By Hon’Ble Itat Deleting The Quantum Addition.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR

Section 10BSection 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "ायपीठ ‘B’ अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE MRS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA

The ITO, Ward-3(2)(5), Ahmedabad vs. Shree Shreyanshnath Developers, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 3053/AHD/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Feb 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2007-08 Ito, Ward-3(2)(5) Shree Shreyansnath Developers Ahmedabad. Vs Block No.832, Binor Bungalows Ghuma Gam Tal. Daskroi, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaxfs 3932 L

Section 250(6)Section 80Section 80I

Revenue against order passed by the Ld.Pr.Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals)-3, Ahmedabad(hereinafter referred to as “ld.CIT(A)”)dated 11.8.2015 under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) pertaining to Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. Grounds raised in the appeal are as under

Royal Calcutta Turf Club., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-22, Kolkata.

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

ITA 1333/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sajnay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Royal Calcutta Turf Club Acit, Circle-22, Kolkata. C/O M/S. Salarpuria Jajodia & Vs. Co., 7, C. R. Avenue, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata, West Bengal-700072. (Pan:Aaaar0769A) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia & Shri Sujay Sen, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SAJNAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT