← 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)

Manishkumar Kanubhai Kachchhi, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(2), Surat

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

ITA 417/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) Manishkumar Kanubhai Kachchhi, I.T.O. C-101, Silver Nest, Near Siler Ward -2(3)2, Vs. Chowk, Yogi Chock To Puna Road, Surat Punagam, Surat. Pan No. Anypk 5830 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 139Section 144Section 148Section 250(6)Section 254(1)Section 69

could not keep the track of the appeal. The ld. CIT(A) has not passed the order on merit as mandated under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ld AR for the assessee submits that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading of mobiles ... parte, without discussing the merit of the case, the order of ld CIT(A) is also not in accordance with the mandate of section 250(6). We find that due to non-representation before ld CIT(A), the assessee lost his appeal. We find that substantial right of the assessee

Bhavesh Nagjibhai Talpada, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(2), Surat

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

ITA 427/SRT/2023[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Surat17 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.427/Srt/2023 (Ay 2010-11) (Hearing In Physical Court) Bhavesh Nagjibhai Talpada Income Tax Officer, 40, Shraddha Row House, Ward-3(1)(2), Surat, Anavil Vs Opp. Sarthana Community Business Center , Adajan, Hall Sarthana, Surat-395006 Surat-395007 Pan No: Agept 4662 K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 144Section 254(1)

dismissing the appeal of the assessee in limine. The order of ld CIT(A) is not in accordance with the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act. Considering the fact that valuable right of assessee are involved in the present appeal and NFAC/ld CIT(A) passed ex parte order

P M Patel (HUF), Ved Road, Surat vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Surat

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

ITA 422/SRT/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Surat17 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.422/Srt/2023 (Ay 2015-16) (Hearing In Physical Court) P.M. Patel (Huf) Deputy Commissioner Of 2-A-1, Gudluck Gems Income-Tax, Circle-3(2), Vs Building, Opp. Prannath Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Hospital, Ved Road, Surat- Gate, Surat-395001 395006 Pan No: Aajhp 0673 B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

appeal and NFAC/ld CIT(A) passed ex parte order. The order of ld CIT(A) is not in accordance with the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act. Section 250(6) mandates that the order of ld CIT(A), must contains the statement of facts, points for determination, decision

Vama Infra, Surat vs. Dy.CIT Cricle-2(1)(2), Surat

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

ITA 406/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Surat17 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.406/Srt/2023 (A.Y. 2016-17) (Hearing In Physical Court) Vama Infra Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ground Floor Veronaa Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Aayakar Vs Residency, Harikrishna Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat- Campus Vraj Chowk, Surat- 395001 395001 Pan : Aakfv 3593 K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 144Section 250(6)Section 254(1)

assessee. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) has not passed speaking order on merit as per mandate of Section 250(6) of the Act. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that assessee received notice of hearing dated 16.03.2022 for fixing appeal ... notice or not, before the NFAC/ld.CIT(A). We find that the order of the NFAC/ld.CIT(A) is not in accordance with mandate of section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. Section 250(6) of the Act mandates that the NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) while deciding the appeal is required

Mohanbhai Raghavbhai Beladiya, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(2)(5), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 359/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.359/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Mohanbhai Raghavbhai Beladiya, Vs. The Ito, 41-42, Vishnu Nagar Society – 1, Ward-3(2)(5), Ankur Char Rasta, A. K. Road, Surat Surat – 395008. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aospb9227J (Assessee) (Respondent)

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT (SMC) BENCH BEFORE SHRI DR. A. L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं

Mr.Mohd Wasim, Bhopal vs. The ITO -3 (2), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 26/IND/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2008-09 Mohd. Wasim Khan, Ito, 3(2), House No. 32, Bhopal बनाम/ Yaseen Mahal, Peergate, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/ Appellant) (Revenue/ Respondent) Pan: Abdpw7203P Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal C.A. & Shri N. D. Patwa, Adv. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.08.2023

Section 144

assessee’s appeal in limine due to non-prosecution by assessee on hearing dates. This is not in accordance with the mandate 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

Tejas Mahendrabhai Modi, Dang vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 5, Navsari

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

ITA 366/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.366/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) Tejas Mahendrabhai Modi, Vs. The Ito, Medical Colony, At & Po: Ahwa, Ward – 5, Tal: Ahwa, Dang – 394710 Navsari. (Gujarat). "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Asupm2132P (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Akshay Modi, Ca Appellant By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 10/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10/08/2023

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, we are of the view that

Shri Dipesh Sureshbhai Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Vapi

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

ITA 251/SRT/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Surat08 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.251/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Virtual Hearing) Dipesh Sureshbhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, Ward-1, 834/2, Next To Dr. Gulab Clinic, Surat Silvassa "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ayypp9552E (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate Appellant By Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 08/08/2023

Section 147Section 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 submission of the assessee, which would have been submitted by him provided

Vallabhbhai Valjibhai Jagani, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(8), Surat

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

ITA 70/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Surat04 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Vallabhbhai Valjibhai Jagani, I.T.O., 452/452, Avadh Vice-Roy Sarthana, Ward-3(2)(8), Vs. Jakatnaka, Surat. Surat. Pan No. Accpj 3431 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 250(6)Section 254(1)

vide application/letter dated 08/02/2021. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee in a non-speaking order without following the mandate of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). 3. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the addition in the assessment

Sagar Embrotech, Surat vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(2), Surat

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

ITA 392/SRT/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Surat04 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Sagar Embrotech, A.C.I.T., 94, Village Popada Hojiwala Circle-1(2), Vs. Industrial Estate, Gate No. 2, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Sachin Palsana Road, Gate, Surat. Surat-394230. Pan No. Abrfs 9325 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 250(6)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

parte order. I find that the order of ld. CIT(A) is cryptic and not in accordance with mandate of Section 250(6) of the Act. Even the ld. CIT(A) has not referred the basic fact leading to levy of penalty. Considering the submissions of both the parties

M/S. Worldwide Fourtune Homes, Kathua vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Jammu

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 197/ASR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar03 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

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

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 292CSection 69A

Assessment Year: 2018-19 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. That the Ld. CIT, (A)-5, Ludhiana passed order Under section 250(6) of the Income tax Act, 1961 merely on assumptions, without appreciating the factual, legal and statutory position of the Law and facts

Vasundhara Vrix Vanwadi Jal Sinchn Vikas Sahakai Mandli Ltd., Na vs. Arivs.the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Navsari Circle, Navsari

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

ITA 280/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Vasundhara Vrix Vanwadi A.C.I.T., Jalsinchnvikas Sahakari Mandli Ltd., Navsari Circle, Navsari, Vs. Room No. 302, 3Rd Floor, “Vrindavan Campus” At:Lachhakadi, Post-Gangpur, Tal. Vansada, Dist.- Income Tax Office, Navsari, Gujarat-396050. Charpool, Awabaug, Pan No. Aaajv 0058 M Navsari, Gujarat-396445. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 250(6)Section 254(1)Section 274Section 80P(2)(a)

parte order without considering the merit of the case. The order of ld. CIT(A) is not in consonance with provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). The ld. AR of the assessee further submits that the Assessing Officer made addition under

The Income-Tax Officer, Muktsar vs. M/S. Makkar Cotton Mills, Muktsar

ITA 504/ASR/2014[2006/07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar01 Aug 2023

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.504/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2006-07

Section 144Section 250(6)Section 48Section 50C

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

Shakti Sarjan Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir. 2(1)(1), Surat

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

ITA 323/SRT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat01 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) Shakti Sarjan Private Ltd., D.C.I.T., 201-202, Swagat Business Hub, Circle-2(1)(1), Surat, Vs. Ichhapore, Surat-395007. Range-4. Pan No. Aaocs 3608 M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 250(6)Section 254(1)Section 68

holding that no submissions was filed by the assessee. The order of ld CIT(A) is not on merit and mandate of section 250(6) of Income tax Act. The ld AR for the assessee submits that he undertakes on behalf of assessee to be more vigilant in attending

Saffron Inc, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer-31(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1169/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1169/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Saffron Inc बिधम/ Ito-31(1)(1) B/7, Shivkrupa Apartment, Kautilya Bhawan, Bandra Vs. Ground Floor, Old Kurla Complex, Bandra Nagardas Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400051. East, Mumbai-400069. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abefs2784A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sumit Mantri Revenue By: Shri Suresh D. Gaikwad (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax/Nfac, Delhi Dated 09.02.2023 For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dismissing The Appeal Ex-Parte Order Without Giving An Opportunity Of Hearing To The Assessee. 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That Assessee Could Not Appear/Present Submission Before The Ld. Cit(A) Because Of Non-Receipt Of Notices Of Hearing, Which Caused The Non-Appearance Before The Ld. Cit(A). In Order To Buttress This Submission, Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Sworn By The Partner [Of The Firm/Assessee] Shri Vikas Naresh Jain Wherein It Has Been Stated That The Email Id Furnished Before The Ld. Cit(A) Was Girdhariagarwal1000@Gmail.Com And, Since The Email Id Was Dis-Functional Due To Technical Snag

For Appellant: Shri Sumit MantriFor Respondent: Shri Suresh D. Gaikwad (Sr. AR)
Section 250(6)

file to the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in accordance to section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) law and the assessee is directed to file written submission/relevant documents to substantiate/ support the grounds

Shri Dhirubhai Gulabbhai Patel, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Navsari

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

ITA 217/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.217/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Virtual Hearing) Dhirubhai Gulabhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, H No. At & Po – Rankuva, Patel Navsari-396445 Faliya, Taluka – Chikhli, Dist. Navsari - 396560. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aezpp2183C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144

before Assessing Officer. We also note that NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) has not passed the order as per the mandate of provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, that is, without hearing the assessee. Hence, we are of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee

Gunwant Sohanlal Kherodiya, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2, Kalyan

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

ITA 1334/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2016-2017
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia (Sr. AR)
Section 250(6)Section 96(2)(vii)

direct the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the grounds of appeal as law mandated i.e. in accordance to section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) and the assessee is directed to be diligent and appear/file 4 A.Y. 2016-17 Gunwant Sohanlal Kherodiya written submission/relevant documents

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Jalandhar vs. Shri Madan Lal, Shahkot

In the result, the appeals of the revenue bearing ITA Nos

ITA 28/ASR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

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

Section 153DSection 250(6)Section 27Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Jalandhar vs. Shri Madan Lal, Shahkot

In the result, the appeals of the revenue bearing ITA Nos

ITA 27/ASR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

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

Section 153DSection 250(6)Section 27Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Jalandhar vs. Shri Madan Lal, Shahkot

In the result, the appeals of the revenue bearing ITA Nos

ITA 26/ASR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

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

Section 153DSection 250(6)Section 27Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

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