“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)

Shri Tejpal Singh, Amritsar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Amritsar

In the result, appeal of the assesseeITA No

ITA 266/ASR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar06 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 266/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 69A

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

Mr. Joseph R Fernandes, Navelim, Salcete vs. ACIT, Circle - 1, Margao

Appeals is DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN

ITA 55/PAN/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji05 Dec 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) आयकरअपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.055 To 057/Pan/2022 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19 Mr Abdul Khader Kodi Darul Huda Near Salafi Masjid, Kunjathur Via Mnjeshwar, Kasargod-671323 Pan: Alhpk5340F . . . . . . . अपऩलधर्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Adv Smt PoojaFor Respondent: Mr Prabhakar Anand DJ

Section 250(6)

॥ आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण, पणजी न्यायपीठ, पणजी में ॥ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI

ACIT, Chandrapur Circle, Chandrapur vs. Shri Averel Gangadhar Shetty, Chandrapur

The appeal is ALLOWED FOR STATISTCIAL PURPOSES

ITA 193/NAG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Parth Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 193/Nag/2017 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr Abhay Agrawal [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Kailash Kanojiya [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

correctness vis-à-vis authenticity of reconciliation statement. Thus, the impugned order suffered from provisions of rule 46A of IT-Rules, 1962 and section 250(6) of the Act. ITAT-Nagpur Page 3 of 5 Averel Gangadhar Shetty ITA No.193/NAG/2017, AY 2014-15 4. Per contra, the Ld. AR adverting ... required to state point of determination, his decision thereon and clear reasons therefore in terms of section 250(6) of the Act. Per contra in the instant case, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) directed for deletion of addition violating the provisions of rule 46A (supra) and further without

The ITO, Ward-1 (1) (1), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. Thakarshibhai Dayabhai Shingala, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 474/RJT/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms.Suchitra Kambleassessment Year :2009-10 Ito, Ward-1(1)(1) Thakarshibhai Dayabhai Shingala Rajkot. Vs At : Mota Mava Kalavad Road Rajkot. (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Rashmin Vekariya, Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/11/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/11/2023 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri Rashmin Vekariya, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr.DR

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

ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Rajkot (in short referred to as ld.CIT(A)), dated 17.7.2015 pertaining to Assessment Year 2009-10 under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short). 2. This is a recalled matter. The Tribunal vide order dated 18.1.2023 passed

Vasudha Shelters, Vijayawada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada

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

ITA 228/VIZ/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.227/Viz/2023 & 228/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/S Vasudha Shelters Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of D.No.27-23-31, Gopala Reddy Street Income Tax Governorpet Circle-1(1) Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Aagfv6727K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 263

justice. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) ought not have dismissed the appeal inlimine since the same is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act, which obligates the CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal on merits. 4. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have held that

Vasudha Shelters, Vijayawada vs. Assiatant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada

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

ITA 227/VIZ/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 263

The Indian Missionary Movement, Kawardha vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Kawardha, Kawardha

In the result appeal for the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our observations

ITA 199/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 199/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year:2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay Jain & R.B. Doshi, CA’sFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 253(5)Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर "यायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR "ी र"वश सूद, "याियक सद

Shree Om Sai Developers, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(3)(1), Surat

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

ITA 586/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.586/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Shree Om Sai Developers Income Tax Officer, Ward- A/204, Yash Plaza, B/S. Ashirwad Vs. 3(3)(1), Room No.418 Aaykar Hotel, Varachha Road, Surat- Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395006 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abyfs 0820 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca िनधा"रती की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing 01/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 23/11/2023

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

submission of assessee and assessment order. Moreover, the Ld. CIT(A) did not pass the order as per the mandate of provision of Section 250(6) of the Act. Hence, we are of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before

Hitesh Ishwarlal Thakar, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(7), Surat

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

ITA 605/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.605/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Hitesh Ishwarlalthakar Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(7), A/8, Raj Mahel Raw House, Vs. Surat, Anvilbusiness Centre, Adajan Nr. River Deal School, Adajan Hazira Road, Adajan, Surat-395007 Surat-395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabhh 9239 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca िनधा"रती की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing 06/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2023

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

principle of natural justice. We also note that NFAC/Ld.CIT(A) did not adjudicate the issue as per the mandate of provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act, on merit. Hence, we are of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case

Hillway Sadhna Co Op Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

ITA 2675/MUM/2023[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2023AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri K Shivram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Joginder Singh, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80P(2)(d)

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

Srf Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 1, Ltu, New Delhi

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

ITA 6252/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2015-16] Srf Limited, Vs Acit, The Galleria, Dlf Mayur Vihar, Circle-1, Ltu, Unit No.236 & 237, Second Floor, New Delhi. Mayur Place, Noida Link Road, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I Extn., Delhi-110091. Pan-Aaacs0206P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Pradeep Dinodia, Ca, Shri R.K.Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Harish Dhamija, Adv. Respondent By Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 26.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20.11.2023 Order

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234CSection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “G” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K.BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL

Shri Islam Patel, Indore vs. The ITO 5 (5), Indore

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

ITA 111/IND/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoshri Islam Patel Ito, 5(5) 13, Mayakhedi Jhalariya Indore Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Dpcpp 7925 D Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.11.2023

Section 144Section 147Section 54BSection 54F

without going into merit of the case. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) is not in conformity with the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. The assesse has now filed the sale deed regarding sale and purchase of land in question and also produced the details

Nileshkumar Chhaganbhai Vasoya, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(8), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 64/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Surat15 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Nileshkumar Chhaganbhai Vs. The Ito, Vasoya, Ward -3(2)(8), 186, Suvidha Row House, Near Surat. Yogi Chowk, Puna Simada Road, Surat – 395010. Pan : Amfpv9665F Appellant Respondednt

Section 115BSection 254(1)Section 69

authority. 6. In rejoinder of the submission, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that order passed the order as per mandate of section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The ld. AR for the assessee prayed that matter may be restored to the file of Assessing Officer with

Shyam Vilas Patil, Vapi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8, Vapi

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 642/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Surat14 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Hybrid Hearing) Shyam Vilas Patil, Vs. The Ito, B-201, Jivan Jyot Co-Op. Hsg Ward-8, Soc. Ltd., Silvassa Road, Nr- Vapi. Haria Parka, Dungra, Vapi -396191. Pan : Apxpp7431E Appellant Respondednt

Section 254(1)

submits that order of Assessing Officer is under section 144 and the CIT(A) has not passed the order as per mandate of section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The ld. AR for the assessee prayed that matter may be restored to the file of Assessing Officer with

Kailash Chandra Moondra, Sumerpur vs. ITO, Sumerpur

In the result, ITA No. 334/Jodh/2019 is allowed for statistical purpose and

ITA 339/JODH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

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

Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 202Section 250Section 250(6)

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

Kailash Chandra Moondra, Sumerpur vs. ITO, Sumerpur

In the result, ITA No. 334/Jodh/2019 is allowed for statistical purpose and

ITA 334/JODH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

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

Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 202Section 250Section 250(6)

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

M/S. Golden Tulip Hospitality Private Limited, Srinagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Srinagar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 265/ASR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Nov 2023AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, CA &

Section 150Section 250(6)Section 69A

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

M/S. Golden Tulip Hospitality Private Limited, Srinagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Srinagar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 264/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, CA &

Section 150Section 250(6)Section 69A

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

M/S Flamingo Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gandhidham.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed with the above directions

ITA 64/RJT/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms.Suchitra Raghunath Kambleassessment Year : 2010-11 M/S.Flamingo Hotels P.Ltd. Ito, Ward-1 Plot No.416 Gandhidham. Ward-2B Adipur-Kutch.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, ld.CIT-DR

Section 2(47)Section 250(6)Section 45

assessee against order passed by the ld.Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals)-3, Rajkot [hereinafter referred to as “ld.CIT(A)”] dated 20.1.2015passed under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short]for the Asst.Year 2010-11. 2. The only ground raised

The ACIT, Central Circle-1, Junagadh vs. M/S. Gujarat Sidhee Cement Ltd., Veraval

ITA 370/RJT/2014[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot10 Nov 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. M/S. Gujarat Sidhee Cement Ltd., The Acit, Sidhigram, Veraval Kodinar Road, Circle-1, Veraval Junagadh Pan : Aaacg 8057 G अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10.11.2023 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) U/S 250(6) Of The Act Dated 27.03.2014 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Earlier, The Appeal Was Adjudicated By The Itat Vide Its Order Dated 11.09.2019; But Subsequently On A Miscellaneous Application Filed By The Revenue, The Appeal Was Recalled For Adjudicating Afresh Ground No.4 Raised By The Revenue Vide Order Passed By The Itat In Ma No.33/Rjt/2020 Dated 06.10.2023. The Itat Noted That The Issue Raised In The Said Ground Had Been Adjudicated Following The Decision In Assessee’S Own Case For Ay 2009-10, But Found That There Was No Parity In The Said Two Cases. Accordingly, Noting This Mistake In The Order Of The Itat, The Appeal Was Recalled For Adjudicating Ground No.4 Raised By The Revenue In Its Appeal In No. 370/Rjt/2014 Which Pertained To The Issue Of Disallowance Of Business

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-DR

Section 250(6)Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE MRS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR