“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)

M/S M.D. Infra Developers, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(3)(3), Surat

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

ITA 114/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Surat12 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.114/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Hearing) M/S. M. D. Infra Developers, Vs. The Ito, Ward-3(3)(3), Block No.128, Mamta Park Society, Surat Near Shivani Show Room, Varachha Road, Kapodara, Surat – 39506. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aasfm7357A (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Akshay M. Modi, Ca Appellant By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 12/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12/07/2023

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 consider assessee’s submission, which would be filed by assessee, provided the Ld. CIT(A) granted adjournment

ACIT Central Circle-29, New Delhi vs. Omaxe Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5064/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Section 250(6)Section 4Section 801B(10)Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH

Omaxe Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4966/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Section 250(6)Section 4Section 801B(10)Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH

Dayaram Agrawal, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur

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

ITA 117/RPR/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 117/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dayaram Agrawal H-1, Rajiv Nagar, Near Shiv Mandir, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Acgpa8622C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri Bikram Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C. Roy, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 69

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

Pramark Partnership Firm, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1224/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Pramak/Partnership Firm Cit(A), Nfac, 2Nd Floor, Kuber Building, 98, Mumbai. Sheikh Memon Street, Zaveri Vs. Bazar, Mumbai-400002. Pan No. Aaafp 1969 L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Zeal SavlaFor Respondent: Ms. Indira Adakil, DR

Section 250

issue whereas even in ex-parte order, the Ld. CIT(A) is required to pass order on merit in terms of section 250(6) of the Act, which prescribe that the order of CIT(Appeals) disposing the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination

L R Builders Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-25, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2270/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Singhvi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri M. K. Pandey, Sr. DR

Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69

circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT (A) was justified in passing the order ignoring the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act which require him to dispose of the appeal stating points for determination, decision thereon and reasons for reaching the decision. 2. Whether

Income Tax Officer Ward-1 (2), Bathinda vs. M/ S Altius Sales Private Limited, Bathinda

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 709/ASR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

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

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 40ASection 40A(3)Section 44A

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

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) Circle-3, Ferozepur vs. Measage Om Sons Marketing Private Limited, Faridkot

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 407/ASR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

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

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 37(1)Section 56(2)(viib)

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

Shri. Nitin Pal Singh, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(3), Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 65/ASR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

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

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 250(6)Section 68

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

Income Tax Officer Ward-3(5), Jalandhar vs. Shri Nitin Pal Singh, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 46/ASR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

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

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 250(6)Section 68

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

M/S. Shaildeep Engineering P. Ltd., Rajkot vs. The DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 85/RJT/2023[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot07 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2019-20 Shaildeep Engineering P.Ltd. Vs. Adit, Cpc C-1/38, Gidc, Aji Industrial Delhi. Estate, Phase-1, Rajkot Sanosara B.O.,Jaliya Rajkot 360 003. Pan : Aaecs 9245 E अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assesseeby : Shri Akash Goda, Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Ld.Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04/07/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/07/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act" For Short) Dated 27.12.201 Pertaining To The Asst.Year 2019-20. 2. As Transpires From Orders Of The Authority Below, The Grievance Of The Assessee Is Vis-À-Vis Adjustment Made To The Income Of The Assessee In The Intimation Made Under Section 143(1) Of The Act By Way Of Disallowance Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 80Jja Of The Act Amounting To Rs.2,02,500/- & Disallowance Of Employees’ 2 Contribution To Esi & Pf In Terms Of Section 36(1)(Va) Amounting To Rs.2,81,444/-. The Reasons For Disallowance Of Deduction Under Section 80Jja Being Non-Filing Of Necessary Audit Report In Form No.10Da Along With Return Of Income & That For Disallowance Of Employees’ Contribution To Esi & Pf Being Late Deposit Of The Same With The Requisite Funds.

For Appellant: Shri Akash Goda, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, ld.Sr.DR

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80J

been filed by the assessee against order passed by the ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) dated 27.12.201 pertaining to the Asst.Year 2019-20. 2. As transpires from orders

The ACIT, Circle Morbi, Morbi vs. M/S. Vita Granito Pvt. Ltd., Morbi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 126/RJT/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Jul 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2008-09 Acit, Morbi Circle Vs. M/S.Vita Granito P.Ltd. Morbi. B/H. Dariyalal Resort Village-Jambudiya Morbi. Pan : Aaccv 4765 A अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Ld.Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04/07/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/07/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against Order Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Rajkot [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld.Cit(A)Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act" For Short) Dated 14.3.2019 Pertaining To The Asst.Year 2008-09. 2. This Is A Recalled Matter. The Appeal Of The Revenue Was Earlier Dismissed On Account Of Low Tax Effect. However, Subsequently, The Department Filed An Ma Pleading That The Appeal Of The Revenue Could Not Be Dismissed On Account Of Low Tax Effect, Because, It Fell Within The Exceptions Provided In Para-8(C) Of The Board’S Instruction Directing Withdrawal Of Appeals On Account Of 2

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, ld.Sr.DR

Section 250(6)Section 37Section 37(1)

filed by the Revenue against order passed by the ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Rajkot [hereinafter referred to as “Ld.CIT(A)under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) dated 14.3.2019 pertaining to the Asst.Year 2008-09. 2. This is a recalled matter

The Income Tax Officer-Ward-2, Gandhidham - Kutch vs. M/S. Riddhi Siddhi Jewellers, Gandhidham - Kutch

In the result, appeal of the Revenue isdismissed

ITA 239/RJT/2018[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot05 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year :2014-15 Ito, Ward-2 Vs. M/S.Riddhi Siddhi Jewellers Gandhidham. Shop No.1, Plot No.68 Bba (Sough) Gandhidham-Kutch. 0 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11/04/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/07/2023

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr.DR

Section 133ASection 250(6)Section 40Section 69ASection 69C

Revenue against order passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Rajkot [hereinafter referred to as “Ld.CIT(A)”] under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) dated 16.3.2018 pertaining to the Asst.Year 2014-15. 2. The grounds raised are as under

Delight Diam Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi/ Income Tax Officer - 1(1)(1), Surat

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

ITA 204/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Surat03 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Virtual Hearing) Delight Diam Private Limited, Vs. The Nfac, Delhi / 405, 4Th Floor Bhojabhai Nisher, Ito, Ward-1(1)(1), Surat. Panchratna Apartment, Dalagiya Sheri Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcd2731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

notice of hearing was served on him. The ld. CIT(A) also did not pass order as per mandate of provision of Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, ld. Counsel contended that an opportunity to plead his case before the ld. CIT(A), may be granted, to the assessee ... 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. The Ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate

Solar Packaging Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO-8(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1158/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Ms. Shruti MandoreFor Respondent: Shri Dharmvir D Yadav (Sr. DR)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1158/Mum/2023

Mokul Overseas Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 13, New Delhi

The appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5610/DEL/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. C. Swain, CIT DR

Section 132Section 144Section 145(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 250(6)

whatsoever. 11. The bench is of considered opinion that Ld. CIT(A) was bound to follow certain mandate of law while adjudicating appeal. Section 250(6) provides that:- “(6) The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination