“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)

Sh. Ram Saran Dass Kishori Lal, Amritsar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Amritsar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 275/ASR/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Sept 2023AY 2006-07

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

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 234BSection 250(6)

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

Sh. Ram Sharan Dass, Amritsar vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Amritsar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 103/ASR/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Sept 2023AY 2003-04

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

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 234BSection 250(6)

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

Chandanben Rajeshbhai Dadhalwala, Bharuch vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Bharuch

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 534/SRT/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.533 & 534/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: (2008-09) (Virtual Hearing) Chandanben Rajeshbhai The Ito, Vs. Dadhalwala, Ward-2(4), 1, Mullawad, Nr. Modi Sheri, Bharuch Ankleshwar, Bharuch – 393001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahmpd0714H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

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 and submission of assessee. Hence

Chandanben Rajeshbhai Dadhalwala, Bharuch vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(4), Bharuch

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 533/SRT/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

Section 144Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

Varniraj Taxtiles, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(5), Surat

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

ITA 461/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) Varniraj Textiles, I.T.O., M-31, Bombay Market, Umarwada, Ward-1(2)(5), Vs. Surat-395010. Surat. Pan No. Aaifv 0327 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 250(6)Section 254(1)Section 40Section 40A(3)

parte order without adjudicating the issues on merit and passing the order as per mandate of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee has sought adjournment as the assessee has filed application under the provisions of Right to 2 Varniraj Textiles Vs ITO Information

Jindal Rail Infrastructure Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-13(2), Delhi

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

ITA 1448/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 250(6)

kept mum during the statutory period cannot claim for the enforcement of right after the statutory limitation. 6. We straightway refer to Section 250(6) of the Act which enjoins that the CIT(A) shall state the points for determination before it and the decision shall be rendered on such ... Thus, it is incumbent upon the CIT(A) to deal with the grounds on merits even in ex parte order. In view of Section 250(6) of the Act, the CIT(A) has no power to dismiss an appeal on account of non-prosecution. This view is also taken

Ritesh Patel, Indore vs. The ITO 1(1), Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 151/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Ritesh Patel, Ito, 1, Kadwali Bujurg, 1(1), बनाम/ Sanwer, Indore. Indore. Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Bcnpp9475N Assessee By Shri Soumya Bumb, Ar Revenue By None Date Of Hearing 13.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 14.09.2023

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

assessee whereby the first-appeal had been dismissed for non-prosecution but the CIT(A) has not made any adjudication as required by section 250(6). Therefore, in any event, this case would go back to Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication and hence the present appeal ... substance in Ld. AR’s submission, we propose to decide this appeal on the basis of record and after hearing Ld. AR. 3. Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provides “The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state

Primary Agriculture Credit Socity, Ghaterfa vs. The ITO Vidisha, Vidisha

In the result, both appeals filed by the assesse in ITANo

ITA 149/IND/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

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

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

evidence. Therefore, it is clear that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is not in accordance with the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. Accordingly in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice the impugned order

Primary Agriculture Credit Socity, Ghaterfa vs. The ITO Vidisha, Vidisha

In the result, both appeals filed by the assesse in ITANo

ITA 148/IND/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

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

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

Surat Glass India Limited, Surat vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Surat

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

ITA 483/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.483/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Hearing) Surat Glass India Limited, The Dcit, Vs. 215 Sahyog Chambers, Opp. Circle -2(1)(2), Kohinoor Society Varachha Surat Road, Surat - 395006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalcs9419F (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Preetesh Shah, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 14/09/2023

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

also note that ITA.483/SRT/2023/AY.2016-17 Surat Glass India Ltd. 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. Hence

M/S Sharp Chuks and Machines Private Limited, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Jalandhar

The appeal of the assessee is disposed of in the terms as above

ITA 169/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Ratinder Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 1Section 115BSection 153(3)Section 250(6)Section 44ASection 69Section 69A

crore vide letter dated 15-07-16 into two parts(APB, Pg. 71). The CIT(A) in para 5.2.4 of order passed under section 250(6) observed that a sum of Rs. 8195000/- representing income from other sources and the balance income of Rs. 7905000/- representing business income because

M/S Janiyyathul Mustharshideen Charitable Trust, Malappuram vs. ITO Ward 1, Tirur

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

ITA 980/COCH/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember Janiyyathul Mustharshideen The Income Tax Officer Charitable Trust Ward -1, Tirur Edayoor Post Vs. Malappuram 676554 [Pan:Aaatj6491Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shameem Ahmed, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.09.2023 O R D E R Persanjay Arora, Am This Appeal By The Assessee Agitating The In Limine Dismissal Of It’S Appeal Vide Order Dated 31.10.2022 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department [Cit(A)], Contesting It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Dated 28.03.2013 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Leading To The Instant Appeal Are That The Assessee, A Public Charitable Trust Constituted Under The Trust Deed Dated 28.06.1999 & Registered U/S.12Aa Of The Act W.E.F. 20.10.2005, Returned It’S Income For The Relevant Year (On 29.06.2010) At Nil Income, Claiming Exemption U/S.11 Of The Act On The Voluntary Contributions Received During The Year, I.E., Rs.12.18 Lakhs. The Same Was Denied By The Assessing Officer (Ao) As The Assessee Had, Subsequent To Its Registration Under Section 12Aa Of The Act On 20.10.2005, I.E., On 21/10/2005, Totally Amended It’S Object Clause, Which Rather Was Required To Be Ratified By The Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shameem Ahmed, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 192Section 250(6)

record. 3.1 The first thing that strikes one is that the impugned order does not satisfy the test of an order under section 250(6) of the Act, which reads as under: - Procedure in appeal. 250. (1) The Commissioner (Appeals) shall fix a day and place for the hearing

Shri Pankajbhai Karamshibhai Savani, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(3)(3), Surat

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

ITA 234/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.234/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Hearing) Pankajbhai Karamshibhai Savani, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(3), C-201, Saimilan Residence, Sudama Surat. Chowk, Mota Varachha, Surat - 395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Berps5247H (Assessee) (Respondent) Shri Ashwin K. Parekh, Ca Assessee By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 26/06/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11/09/2023

Section 143(3)

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. Hence, we are of the view that

Dipak Champaklal Chevli, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(2)(1), Surat

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

ITA 374/SRT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.374/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Dipak Champaklal Chevli, Vs. The Ito, B. No.13, Vijay Nagar Co. Op. Ward – 2(2)(1), Society, Majura Gate, Surat Surat – 395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abmpc1808M (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Bipin Jariwala, Ar Appellant By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 06/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 08/09/2023

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

also note that ld. CIT(A) has not passed the order as per the mandate of provisions of 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, I am of the view that

Dineshkumar Ujabhai Patel, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS 3, Ahmedabad

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 389/SRT/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.388 & 389/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Dineshkumar Ujabhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, At-Surajpura, Po.Songra, Tal: Tds-3, Palanpur, Banaskantha, Gujarat, Ahmedabad India Residential Address: B-303, Saroj Park, Opp. Gali Tower, Anand Mahal Road, Adajan, Surat – 395009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ajbpp4111H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 201(1)Section 250(6)Section 271C

Dineshkumar Ujabhai Patel, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS 3, Ahmedabad

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 388/SRT/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Section 201(1)Section 250(6)Section 271C

Smt. Heenaben Maheshbhai Gadhethariya, Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward-3 (1) (1), Rajkot

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

ITA 117/RJT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Miss Suchitra Raghunath Kambleassessment Year :2017-18 Smt. Heenaben Maheshbhai Vs. The Ito, Ward-3(1) Gadhethariya Rajkot. Flat B/21, Copper Elegance Nr.Ambika Township, Mavdi Police Ground Rajkot, Gujarat Pan : Ahwpg 7174 J

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Shah, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 144Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

against order 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) dated 30.12.2022 pertaining to the Asst.Year2017-18. 2. At the beginning of hearing

Anju Rani Gupta, Noida vs. ACIT Circle-2, Moradabad

ITA 7120/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmasmt. Anju Rani Gupta, Vs. Acit, C-30, Sector 19, Noida, Circle-Ii, Uttar Pardesh Moradabad Pan : Afnpg9818A` (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 250(6)Section 4Section 5

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘A’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SH. N.K.BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANUBHAV

Jyoti Sharma, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward1(2), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of my observations mentioned above

ITA 254/RPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 254/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Jyoti Sharma Qr No.3D, St 30, Sector-1, Bhilai, Durg-490 001 Pan : Avtps5669P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56Section 68

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH

Arun Soni, Bilaspur vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bilaspur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 221/RPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 220 & 221/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Arun Soni Industrial Area, Tifra Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan: Ajeps8535K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH