← 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)

Mukesh Jain, Gwalior vs. ACIT C-1, Gwalior

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 480/AGR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

Appeals) has passed ex parte order without any discussion on merits, which is not in consonance with the spirit of section 250(6) of the Act, whereas learned CIT(Appeals) was expected to state the points for determination, decision thereon and the reasons for the decision as provided u/s. 250

Krishna Kumar Gupta, Etah vs. National Faceless Assessment Center, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 401/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 158BSection 250Section 250(6)Section 68

Appeals) has passed ex parte impugned order without any substantial discussion on merits, which is not in consonance with the spirit of section 250(6) of the Act, whereas learned CIT(Appeals) was expected to state the points 3 | P a g e for determination, decision thereon and the reasons

Mungra Ashokbhai, Jamnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(10), Jamnagar.

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

ITA 282/RJT/2025[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot17 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Ms. Rutvika, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR
Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)

decided the issue in respect of the ground raised by the assessee in Memo of Appeal as per the mandate of provisions 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

Vasant Sudam Bhase, Dehu Gao Pune vs. Assessmeng Unit, Income Tax Department

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 2558/PUN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2558/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2023-24 Vasant Sudam Bhase, At & Post Dehu Gai Dehu Road, Tal-Haveli, Dist-Pune Pune-412109 Maharashtra Pan-Audpb7683F Appellant Vs Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Pune Respondent Assessee By Revenue By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : Shri Kishor B Phadke : Shri Harshit Bari, Addl. Cit (Through Virtual) : 17.12.2025 : 19.12.2025 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit Appeal (Nfac), Delhi U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Dated 31.10.2025 Which Is Arising Out Of Order Passed U/S.144 R.W.S 142(1) Of The Act Dated 21.02.2025. 2. Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1 The Learned Cit (Appeals) Income Tax Department Erred In Law & On Facts That Appellant Failed To Submit Supporting Submission In Support Of Grounds Of Appeal As While Submitting The Appeal Before Cit Submitted All The Information & Documents 2. The Learned Cit (Appeals)) Income Tax Department Erred That Appellant Sub Leasing Rental Property -Open Land To The Companies Namely "Mahindra & Mahindra "Is A Business Income & Not Income From Other Sources. 3. The Learned Cit (Appeals)) Income Tax Department Erred That Appellant That Declaration Of Subletting Income On Presumptive Basis Treating Them As Business Income & View Of Assessing Officer Confirmed In The Order 2

Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण "एस एम सी" न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "SMC" BENCH, PUNE BEFORE Dr

Surendra Sumatilal Sancheti, Aurnagabad vs. ITO WD- 1(1), Aurnagabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA

ITA 1862/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rathi (virtual)For Respondent: Shri Ganesh B Budruk, Addl.CIT
Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL

Surendra Sumatilal Sancheti, Aurnagabad vs. ITO WD- 1(1), Aurnagabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA

ITA 1861/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rathi (virtual)For Respondent: Shri Ganesh B Budruk, Addl.CIT
Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL

Surendra Sumatilal Sancheti, Aurnagabad vs. ITO WD- 1(1), Aurnagabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA

ITA 1860/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rathi (virtual)For Respondent: Shri Ganesh B Budruk, Addl.CIT
Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL

Surendra Sumatilal Sancheti, Aurnagabad vs. ITO WD- 1(1), Aurangabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA

ITA 1859/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rathi (virtual)For Respondent: Shri Ganesh B Budruk, Addl.CIT
Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL

Surendra Sumatilal Sancheti, Aurnagabad vs. ITO WD- 1(1), Aurangabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA

ITA 1858/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rathi (virtual)For Respondent: Shri Ganesh B Budruk, Addl.CIT
Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL

Surendra Sumatilal Sancheti, Aurnagabad vs. ITO WD- 1(1), Aurnagabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA

ITA 1856/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rathi (virtual)For Respondent: Shri Ganesh B Budruk, Addl.CIT
Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL

M/S B.N. Dutta, Jamshedpur vs. DCIT, Cir. 2, Durgapur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 705/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.705/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S B. N. Dutta ….…………………………………………………..………….……Appellant Head Office: 518, G Road, Sonari West Layout, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand – 831011. [Pan: Aadfb0648J] Vs. Dcit, Circle-2, Durgapur……..……....….….. ……………….........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri D. Khasnobis, Ca & None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri H. Robindro Singh, Addl. Cit - Dr & None Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 05, 2025 & December 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 17, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 13.02.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Indore [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Partnership Firm & Engaged In The Business Of Civil Construction & Maintenance Of Civil Structures Inside Stell Plants. For The Assessment Year 2011-12, The Assessee Filed Its Return On 30.09.2011 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.36,58,080/- & Total Tax & Cess Liability Of Rs.11,30,347/- Was Discharged In Full Resulting In A Refund Of Rs.12,520/-. The Return Of The Assessee Was Processed By The Cpc U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 27.01.2012. The Assessee Did Not Receive Any Information From The Cpc Either Directly By Way Of Service Of Physical Copy Of The Same Or From The Then Authorised Representative Namely Mr. S. N. Gupta. Due To Non-Receipt Of

Section 143(1)Section 249(3)Section 250

appeals on merit after stating the point for determination, decision thereon and reasons therefore as is apparent from perusal of provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act which is reproduced as under for the sake of ready reference: 6)The order of the [* * *] [ Omitted

Prem Parkash Gupta, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 50(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 6863/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Premparkash Gupta Ito, Ward-50(5), Delhi Ea-156, Inderpuri, Delhi – 110012. Vs Room No. 1411, E2 Block, Civic [Pan: Aagpg5931L] Centre, New Delhi – 110002. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 115BSection 131Section 254(1)Section 44ASection 68Section 69A

passed ex-parte order. The order of ld CIT(A) is not in consonance with the mandate of section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The assessing officer is also made addition for the want of cash flow statement and other addition about existence of business. Though, the assessee

Santosh Kumar Tiwari, Ballia vs. Income Tax Officer - 2(5), Ballia

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

ITA 86/VNS/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi16 Dec 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144Section 250(6)

limine without going into merits of the case, in violation of the statutory duty of the learned CIT(A), as contained in Section 250(6) of the Act. 3. At the time of hearing, the assessee was represented by Shri B.N. Pandey, Advocate and Revenue was represented by Shri

Wayzul Haque, Gorakhpur vs. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department, Varanasi

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

ITA 78/VNS/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi16 Dec 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 250(6)

duty of the learned CIT(A) to pass speaking order on merits, on the various grounds of appeal, as contained in Section 250(6) of the Act. 3. At the time of hearing, the assessee was represented by none and Revenue was represented by Shri G.P. Singh, Senior Department Representative ... view of foregoing and having regard to statutory duty of the learned CIT(A) to pass speaking order on merits, as contained in Section 250(6) of the Act, the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) is set aside, and issues raised in assessee’s appeal before learned

Ravindra Pal Singh, Gorakhpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Gorakhpur

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

ITA 50/VNS/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi16 Dec 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 250(6)

reasons for his order in detail. This is in contradiction of the statutory duty of passing speaking order on merits, as contained in Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’). 3. At the time of hearing, the assessee was represented by none and Revenue ... view of foregoing and having regard to statutory duty of the learned CIT(A) to pass speaking order on merits, as contained in Section 250(6) of the Act, the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) is set aside and issues in dispute are restored back to the file

Jai Hind Souharda Pattin Sahakari Niyamit, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(3), Belagavi

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 168/PAN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji16 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2012-13 Jai Hind Souharda Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Bazar Road, Tal.: Hukkeri, Belgavi-591309 Pan:Aaajj0226F . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal[‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 253(1)Section 80P

same to the stage of its institution with a direction deal therewith de-novo on merits and pass speaking order in terms of section 250(6) of the Act. 7. In result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, the order pronounced

Anil Bhawani, Indore vs. ITO - 5(1), Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 505/IND/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 68

time. Therefore, the case of assessee requires revisiting by CIT(A) and passing a meritorious order in accordance with the mandatory provision of section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which provides “The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall ... opportunity is given and hence prays that the present matter should be remanded to CIT(A) for an apt adjudication in terms of section 250(6). 5. Ld. DR for revenue agrees with the prayer of Ld. AR but makes a request to direct the assessee to represent his case

Kashaf Batatawala, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(2)(1), Piramal Chamber

ITA 5703/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishwas MehendaleFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi
Section 154Section 250(6)Section 90

Learned CIT(A) was required to deal with the issue raised by the Assessee on merits in view of the provisions contained in Section 250(6) of the Act. [CIT (Central) Nagpur vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) 25/04/2016]. 7. Given the facts and circumstances

Orange Fish Entertainment Prvite Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 13(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5213/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Nitesh Joshi a/wFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR

first opportunities. However, the statutory duty cast upon the first opportunities. However, the statutory duty cast upon the first appellate authority under section 250(6) of the Act is to dispose of appellate authority under section 250(6) of the Act is to dispose of appellate authority under section 250 ... issues on merits, does not meet the mandate of examination of the issues on merits, does not meet the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act. section 250(6) of the Act. 3.2 The recording of reasons is an indispensable part The recording of reasons is an indispensable part

M/S Bhupendra Autotech Industries (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Haryana

ITA 5828/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 5826/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 5828/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 M/S Bhupendra Autotech Industries Vs Acit, (P) Ltd., F-1098, Basement, Central Circle-1, Chitranjan Park, New Delhi-110019 Gurgaon, Haryana-122016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccb8550H Assessee By : Ms. Shilpa Gupta, Ca & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.12.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Twin Appeals In Ita Nos. 5826 To 5828/Del/2025 For Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2016-17, Arise Against The Cit(A)-3, Gurgaon’S Common Order Dated 26.08.2025 In Case Nos. 10834 & 10014/Cit(A)-3/Ggn/2013- 14 & 2017-18, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) & 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

For Appellant: Ms. Shilpa Gupta, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

instance could not be altogether ruled out. This is indeed coupled with the facts that there is also no effective compliance to section 250(6) of the Act in the impugned lower appellate order stipulating points of determination to be framed followed by a detailed adjudication thereupon. It is therefore