“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)

Murali Krishna Kommineni, Srikakulam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Srikakulam

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

ITA 299/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.299/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Muralikrishna Kommineni Vs. Income Tax Officer 17, Sbi Colony Ward-2 Chinna Bondilipuram Srikakulam Srikakulam [Pan : Bcxpk3244G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Income Tax while passing the order failed to dispose of assessee case on merits and this is in contravention of the provisions of section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. 7. For these and other reasons that are to be urged at the time of hearing assessee prays that

Lilasons Breweries Ltd., Bhopal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 1 (1), Bhopal

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 133/IND/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore05 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 147Section 153Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

impugned orders passed by the CIT(A) are not inconfirmity with the Page 5 of 6 ITANo.132 & 133/Ind/2023 Lilasons Breweries Ltd. provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. Accordingly in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice we set aside the impugned orders

Lilasons Breweries Ltd., Bhopal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 1 (1), Bhopal

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 132/IND/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore05 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 147Section 153Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

Kcl Stock Broking Limited, Thane(W) Maharashtra vs. DCIT/ACIT 3(1), Indore

ITA 273/IND/2023[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Indore04 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Kcl Stock Broking Acit, Limited, Circle 3(1), B-3/204, Saket Complex Indore बनाम/ Thane, Vs. Mumbai (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aadck7407P Assessee By Shri Aniket Garg, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04.01.2024

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

order passed by AO and dismissed assessee’s first-appeal but the case of assessee requires an apt adjudication in terms of Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by CIT(A). Therefore and also having regard to the principle of natural justice and fair play

DCIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi vs. Nishit Capinvest P.Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 1312/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 68

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

A to Z Stock Trade Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 1(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1075/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr.DR

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

rather acted to its own detriment. 4. As further submitted, the CIT(A) has passed the order in limine without compliance of Section 250(6) of the Act without disposing of the issues on merit. The ld. counsel further submitted that the CIT(A) ought not to have imputed ... passed an ex-parte order in limine mainly on the ground of non prosecution. In this backdrop, we refer to Section 250(6) of the Act which enjoins that CIT(A) shall state the point for determination along with reasons. In the decision making process, it is incumbent upon

Kaybee Natural Resources Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-15(2), Kolkata.

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

ITA 1098/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Rajesh Kumar

Section 250(6)

without deciding the same on merit. In our opinion, the order passed by ld. CIT(A) is in violation of the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act which provides that the appellate authority shall state in writing and state the point of determination and decision thereon with reasons

Ujala Holdings Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 27(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 3393/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri V. Rajkumar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 250(6)

prevent miscarriage of justice. The impugned first appellate order thus deserves to be set aside. 7. Noticeably, the CIT(A) is obligated under Section 250(6) of the Act to dispose of all the grounds of appeal placed before its consideration. The appeal cannot be dismissed for warrant of prosecution ... limine without I.T.A. No.3393/Del/2023 4 compliance of Section 250(6) of the Act. The CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal summarily without determining the issues on merits. 8. Hence, in totality, the first appellate order requires to be set aside for adjudication denovo in accordance with law. 9. It shall

Narendra Sohanrajji Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-20(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 3274/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Dhaval ShahFor Respondent: Lieder Panicker

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 292BSection 69C

Page 1 ITA No.3274/Mum/2023 Narendra Sohanrajji Shah Vs. ITO 20(2)(4) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH

Sangeeta Pratap Singh, Thane vs. ITO Ward 2 (4), Mumbai

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

ITA 3240/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudharysangeeta Pratap Singh Vs. Income Tax Officer B-205, Bhrahmacharani Ward -2(4) Apartment, Shanti Park, It Asher Park, 6 Th Floor, Mira Road (E) 401107 Room No. 18, Waghle Ind Estate, Thane- 400602 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Awaps2573G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : N.A. Kulkarni Respondent By : Lieder Panicker Date Of Hearing 27.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 01.01.2024

For Appellant: N.A. KulkarniFor Respondent: Lieder Panicker

Section 250Section 69

P a g e | 1 Mahendra Ravindra Salunkhe Vs. ITO Ward 35(2)(3) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Mahendra Ravindra Salunkhe, Panvel City vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

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

ITA 3204/MUM/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudharymahendra Ravindra Vs. Income Tax Officer Salunkhe, A-202, 35(2)(3) Swarganaga Chs Ltd, Plot Kautilya Bhavan No.62, Sector 18, Bkc, 400050 Kamothe, Panvel City, Mumbai Raigarh- 410209 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Bkfps6678L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Lieder Panicker Date Of Hearing 27.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 01.01.2024 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, Dated 11.07.2023 For A.Y. 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. In The Appeal The Assessee Had Stated That He Had The Total Income Of Rs.2,26,652. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Had Given The Assessee An Opportunity To Hear, Firstly In The Year Of 2021 However Due To Second Wave Of Covid 19 He Was Not Able To Attend The Same As During The Concerned Period Survival Was The Only Challenge. Later, The Concerned Assessee In The Year 2023 Was Diagnosed With Medical Illness Which Impaired His Physical Inability & Mental Stability To Attend The Hearings. The Order Was Dismissed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals By Passing An Order Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 11/07/2023. The Notices Received From The Cit Appeals Did Not Contain Any Specific Information To Be Submitted Due To Which The Assessee Was Under The Presumption That They Will Ask Additional Questions In The Next Notice. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend, Alter Or Delete The Said Ground Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Lieder Panicker

Section 148Section 194HSection 250Section 250(6)Section 43(5)

However, on perusal of the material on record and order of the ld. CIT(A) it is evident that except mentioning provisions of Section 250(6), the ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the appeal on merits but simply dismissed for want of non-prosecution. Section 250(6) contemplates that

Talwar Medicos, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-50(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 3299/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Umesh Singh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr.DR

Section 144Section 250(6)

such a small tax payer. 3. In my view, it was incumbent upon the CIT(A) to deal with grounds on merits under Section 250(6) of the Act after giving proper opportunity to the assessee. Needless to say, the CIT(A) plays the role of both adjudicating authority ... well as the appellate authority. Thus, the CIT(A) ought to have addressed all the issues in consideration on merits in terms of Section 250(6) of the Act with a reasoned order. The order of the CIT(A) do not appear to comply such legal requirement. However

Ritesh Gandhare, Chandrapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Chandrapur

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

ITA 247/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.247/Nag/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ritesh Gandhare, The Income Tax Officer, 01, Near Central Excise, Datala V Ward-2, Chandrapur. Road, Opp.Agresan Bhawan, S Jagannath Baba Nagar, Chandrapur – 442402. Maharashtra Pan: Ahjpg2827M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Mahavir Atal – Ar Revenue By Shri Vijay Kumar Subrahmanyan– Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 28/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29/12/2023

Section 144Section 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

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

Ghanshyam Bhikhbhai Sutaria, Surat vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Surat, Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Gate

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

ITA 655/SRT/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.655/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ghanshyam Bhikhabhai Sutaria, Vs. The Ito, 6/1826-27, Gopinath Chambers, Ward – 2(1)(1), Mahidharpura, Surat - 395003 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acips4070N (Appellant) (Respondent) Ms. Chaitali Shah, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29/12/2023

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

principle of natural justice. I also note that ld. CIT(A) has not passed the order as per the mandate of provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. That is, ld. CIT(A) did not pass order on merit based on the material available on record

Bhanuben Rajeshbhai Rathod, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(6), Surat

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

ITA 650/SRT/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.650/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Physical Hearing) Bhanuben Rajeshbhai Rathod, The Ito, Vs. Block No.8, Shree Darshan Ward – 1(3)(6), Society, Nr. Dhabholi Jahangirpura Surat Bridge, Jahangirpura, Surat - 395005 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Atkpr4904P (Appellant) (Respondent) Ms. Chaitali Shah, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29/12/2023

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

also note that ld. CIT(A) has not passed the order as per the mandate of provisions of ITA.650/SRT/2023/AY.2010-11 Bhanuben Rajeshbhai Rathod section 250(6) of the Act. That is, ld. CIT(A) did not pass order on merit based on the material available on record. Hence

Kamlesh Jethmal Shah, Silvassa vs. Income Tax Officer, Silvassa Ward, Silvassa

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

ITA 369/SRT/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.369/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2009-10) (Hybrid Hearing) Kamlesh Jethmal Shah, Vs. The Ito, Plot No.P-9/1, Everest Garden, Silvassa Ward, Opp. Indian Bank, Naroli Bank, Silvassa Naroli Road, Silvassa – 396230. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aeqps7259R (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate Appellant By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 07/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29/12/2023

Section 144

also note that Ld. CIT(A) has not passed the order as per the mandate of provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. Hence, I am of the view that one more opportunity ITA.369/SRT/2023/AY.2009-10 Kamlesh Jethmal Shah should be given to the assessee to plead his case before

Shyamala Navlaha, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 30(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 548/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

Section 143(1)Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA

Sanjay Singhal, Mount Abu vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jodhpur

In the result, the appeals of assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 112/JODH/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH,JODHPUR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE

Sanjay Singhal, Mount Abu vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jodhpur

In the result, the appeals of assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 111/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH,JODHPUR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE

Rajkumari Singhal, Mount Abu vs. DCIT, . Central Circle-1, Jodhpur

In the result, the appeals of assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 110/JODH/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH,JODHPUR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE