← 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)

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 25/ASR/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

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

Income Tax Officer ( TDS) -1, Jalandhar vs. Shri Madan Lal, Shahkot

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

ITA 24/ASR/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

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 23/ASR/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Jul 2023AY 2008-09

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

Shri Mahesh Kumar Garg, Indore vs. ITO /ACIT 5(1) Indore, Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 360/IND/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Mahesh Kumar Garg, Ito, Nfac, बनाम/ 86/87, Old Agrawal Nagar, Delhi/Acit, (1), Indore Indore. Vs. (Assessee /Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Abipg3634M Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27.07.2023

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

decided on the basis of orders of lower-authorities. Therefore, the hearing is proceeded and the case is being disposed of. 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 ... prosecution by assessee on the dates of hearing fixed by Ld. CIT(A), but still without complying with the mandate of section 250(6). Therefore, the impugned first appeal-order passed by Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be set aside and the matter is fit for remand to the file

Amir Jamaludeen Mirza, Vapi vs. Income Tax Officer, Silvassa Ward, Silvassa

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

ITA 113/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Amir Jamaludeen Mirza, I.T.O., Flat No. 302, Building D-2, Vapi Ward-Silvassa, Vs. Silvassa Road, Dream City, Silvassa. Vapi-396195 (Gujarat) Pan No. Avppm 7767 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 144Section 250(6)Section 254(1)Section 44ASection 69A

reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has not passed the order on merit as mandated under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the Assessing Officer has also passed the assessment order without giving ... party, 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). Thus, in my view the assessee require one more opportunity to explain and substantiate his claim, therefore, I think it appropriate to restore

Shilpkars Clothing Company, Mumbai vs. ACIT-22(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1503/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhshilpkars Clothing Vs. Acit-22(2), Company, 702, Rna Kutir, Room No. 417, 4 Th Floor, 14Th Road, Chembur, Tower No. 6, Vashi Mumbai – 400071 Railway Station Building, Complex, Vashi Navi Mumbai - 400703 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Ablfs1537J Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Dharmesh Shah & Jigna Jain Respondent By : Suresh D. Gaikwad Date Of Hearing 13.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-49, Mumbai, Dated 21.03.2022 For A.Y. 2011- 12. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: (Grounds) “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law & In Facts In Not Appreciating That The Reopening Of Assessment Was Bad In Law. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Alleged Bogus Purchases By Working Of Peak Credit Amounting To Rs.1,17,10,542/- 3. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Not Granting Adequate Opportunity To The Appellant & Dismissing The Appeal. 4. The Appellant Craves Leaves To Add, Amend, Alter, Delete All Or Any Of The Forgoing Grounds Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Dharmesh Shah &For Respondent: Suresh D. Gaikwad
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 148Section 250Section 69C

P a g e | 1 Shilpkars Clothing Company Vs. ACIT-22(2) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH

M/S Satec Envir Engineering (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 11(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1308/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2023AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Ms. Vinita ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia (Sr. AR)
Section 250(6)

Envir Engineering (India) Pvt. Ltd. direct the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in accordance to section 250(6) of the Act after giving proper opportunity to the assessee. The Ld. AR undertakes to file the correct email address as well as postal

M/S Satec Envir Engineering (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax TDS Range 2(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1307/MUM/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2023AY 2012-2013
For Appellant: Ms. Vinita ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia (Sr. AR)
Section 250(6)

Envir Engineering (India) Pvt. Ltd. direct the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in accordance to section 250(6) of the Act after giving proper opportunity to the assessee. The Ld. AR undertakes to file the correct email address as well as postal

Total Integrated Design (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-25(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 8298/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M.Balaganesh[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Total Integrated Design (India) Vs Ito, Pvt.Ltd., D-105, Gf, Defence Ward-25(3), Colony, New Delhi-110019. New Delhi. Pan-Aaact3502B Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Gunjan Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri Gurpreet Shah Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement .07.2023

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “H” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT

Ali Hussain Sadriwala, Dewas vs. The ITO-2, Dewas

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

ITA 89/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniali Hussain Sadriwala Ito-2 104, Jai Prakash Marg Indore Vs. Dewas (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aawph 3815 J Assessee By Ms. Sonam Khandelwal Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19.07.2023

Section 115BSection 250(6)Section 68

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY

M/S Super Emirates Exports, Mumbai vs. ITO -Ward 28(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1314/MUM/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.1312 & 1314/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2011-12 To 2012-13)

For Appellant: Dinkle HariaFor Respondent: Suresh D. Gaikwad
Section 145Section 147

P a g e | 1 ITA No. 1312 & 1314/Mum/2023 M/s Super Emirates Export Vs. ITO, Ward 28(3)(3) IN

M/S Super Emirates Exports, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward 28(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1312/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.1312 & 1314/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2011-12 To 2012-13)

For Appellant: Dinkle HariaFor Respondent: Suresh D. Gaikwad
Section 145Section 147

P a g e | 1 ITA No. 1312 & 1314/Mum/2023 M/s Super Emirates Export Vs. ITO, Ward 28(3)(3) IN

Mh Brothers, Raisen vs. The ITO, Raisen

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 371/IND/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 249(2)Section 250

appeal of the assessee on merits but dismissed the same in limine for non-prosecution which is contrary to the provision of section 250(6) of the Act. The assessee has explained reason for non-appearance/response to the notice issued by CIT(A) due to out of country during

Mh Brothers, Raisen vs. The ITO, Raisen

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 370/IND/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

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

Section 249(2)Section 250

appeal of the assessee on merits but dismissed the same in limine for non-prosecution which is contrary to the provision of section 250(6) of the Act. The assessee has explained reason for non-appearance/response to the notice issued by CIT(A) due to out of country during

Seema Pandit, Mount Au vs. ITO, Ward, Mount Abu

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

ITA 160/JODH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: The Cit(A) To Rectify The Order. The Cit(A) Has Rejected The Application U/S 154 Vide Order Dated 29.3.2019 & Served The Order On The Assessee On 19.4.2019. After Rejection Of His Application U/S 154, The Assessee Has Immediately Filed This Appeal Before The Hon'Ble Tribunal..

Section 154Section 250(6)

dismissed the appeal in limine due to non appearance of the assessee without deciding the appeal on merits. As per section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act "The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination ... does not empower the Tribunal to dismiss an appeal for default in the absence of the appellant. iii). That considering the provisions of section 250(6) as upheld by the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. S. Chenniappa Mudaliar [1969] 74 ITR 41 the order

The Income Tax Officer, Samba vs. Sh. Ashok Kumar Sharma, Samba

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in Ground nos

ITA 475/ASR/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.475/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 40Section 80I

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

Kushal Navlakha, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, New Delhi

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 1663/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143(1)Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH

Grand Motors, Bilaspur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 167/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 167/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Grand Motors Nh-200, Raipur Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) Pan: Aakfg6077H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C. Roy, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 40

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH

Shri Sanjay Mukund Paithankar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1141/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sanjay Mukund Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Paithankar, C/O Warde & – 3(3)(1), Room No. 1631, Shah, Chartered 16Th Floor, Air India Accountants, 1201, Building, Nariman Point, Regent Chambers, J.B. Mumbai, Maharashtra Marg, Nariman Point, 400 021 Mumbai – 40021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Arwpp8732F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Hitesh ShahFor Respondent: None
Section 148Section 250(6)Section 56Section 69A

that the ld. CIT(A) is not justified in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating the additions made on merit as laid down in section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. Inspite of the fact that the impugned additions were made at the time of assessment stage without considering ... assessee which could not be filed before the passing of the assessment order as more time sought was not granted by the AO. Section 250(6) of the I.T Act contemplates that the ld. CIT(A) would determine point in dispute and therefore, record reasons on such point in support

Shri Riyazulhaq F Pathan, Belgavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Nippani

The appeal is ALLOWED

ITA 21/PAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 21/Pan/2019 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Riyazulhaq F Pathan, Near Central Excise Quarter, Nipani Tq. Chikodi, Belagavi -591237 Pan:Ahdpp8150A . . . . . . . अपीलाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nipani . . . . . . .प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri N. Shrikanth सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 10/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 12/07/2023 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Appeal Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Belagavi [‘Cit(A)’ In Short] Dt. 30/10/2018 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ In Short] Which In Turn Ascended Out Of The Assessment Order Dt. 28/12/2017 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nipani [‘Ao’ In Short].

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69Section 69A

ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 4 Shri Riyazulhaq F Pathan ITA No.21/PAN/2019 AY: 2015-16 5. It shall be purposive to state that, section 250(6) of the Act, mandates the first appellate authority to dispose of the appeal of the assessee in writing by stating (i) points for determination ... submission, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have disposed of the appeal of the assessee in the manner required in Section 250(6) of the Act, which in the present case has not been complied with. We find that, in a similar situation the Co-ordinate Pune bench in ‘Uttamkumar