← 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)

M/S Continental Construction Company, Jammu vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Jammu

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

ITA 93/ASR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

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

Section 143(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

Swami Ganga Giri Janta Girls College, Raikot vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemptions) Ward, Jalandhar

In the result,the appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 715/ASR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

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

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250(6)Section 263Section 43(1)

permission of the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar.” Grounds of Appeal in ITA No. 454/ASR/2019: “1. That the order passed under section 250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Jalandhar 4 I.T.A. No. 87/Asr/2022, & ITA No. 715/Asr/2019 in Appeal no. 2/10002/18-19/CIT(A)/Jal dated ... Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar.” Grounds of Appeal in ITA 715/ASR/2019 5 I.T.A. No. 87/Asr/2022, & ITA No. 715/Asr/2019 “1. That the order passed under section 250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Jalandhar in appeal no. 2/10223/18-19/CIT(A)/Jal dated 24.09.2019 is contrary to law and facts

Late Jasbir Singh Rai Through Leagal Heiar Shri Jagir Singh Rai, Nawanshahar vs. Income Tax Officer, Nawanshahar

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

ITA 604/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 144Section 250(6)Section 69

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

Shri Swami Ganga Giri Janta Girls College, Raikoot vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (CPC), Bangalore

In the result,the appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 454/ASR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

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

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250(6)Section 263Section 43(1)

permission of the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar.” Grounds of Appeal in ITA No. 454/ASR/2019: “1. That the order passed under section 250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Jalandhar 4 I.T.A. No. 87/Asr/2022, & ITA No. 715/Asr/2019 in Appeal no. 2/10002/18-19/CIT(A)/Jal dated ... Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar.” Grounds of Appeal in ITA 715/ASR/2019 5 I.T.A. No. 87/Asr/2022, & ITA No. 715/Asr/2019 “1. That the order passed under section 250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Jalandhar in appeal no. 2/10223/18-19/CIT(A)/Jal dated 24.09.2019 is contrary to law and facts

Messeag. Zum Zum Hardware., Srinagar vs. Ibncome Tax Officer Ward -3(3), Srinagar

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

ITA 242/ASR/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jun 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.242/Asr/2019 Assessment Year: 2007-08

Section 143(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

Shri Gurkha Singh Alias Joginder Singh, Bathinda vs. Income Tax Offier Ward 1(1), Bathinda

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

ITA 145/ASR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.145/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)Section 54BSection 64Section 69A

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

The Income Tax Officer, Amritsar vs. Shri Baljinderr Singh Chahal, Amritsar

In the result, the appeal of revenue ITA No

ITA 440/ASR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.434/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 147Section 250(6)

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

The Income Tax Officer, Amritsar vs. Sh. Surjit Singh, Amritsar

In the result, the appeal of revenue ITA No

ITA 434/ASR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.434/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 147Section 250(6)

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

Ritu Mishra, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle 54(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6831/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. T. M. Shiva Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 24Section 250Section 250(6)Section 40

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Sh. Yogesh

Ritu Mishra, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle 54(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6829/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. T. M. Shiva Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 24Section 250Section 250(6)Section 40

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Sh. Yogesh

ACIT Circle 54(1), New Delhi vs. Ritu Mishra, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6042/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. T. M. Shiva Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 24Section 250Section 250(6)Section 40

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Sh. Yogesh

Chengamanad Panchayat Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Aluva vs. ITO Ward 3, Aluva

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 975/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shriabyt.Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.SurendranathRao, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 5Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

registered as a Primary Agricultural Credit Society (PACS) under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (Kerala Act), agitating the appellate order under section 250(6) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 16.11.2022, dismissing

The Asst. Commr. Income Tax, Circle, -1, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. M/S Ravi Technoforge Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 291/RJT/2019[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot16 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year :2014-15 Acit, Cir.1 Vs. M/S.Ravi Techno Forge P. Ltd. Rajkot. Plot No.7/8, Survey No.211 Veraval Shapar Ind. Area Rajkot Gondal Highway, Tal. Kotdasangani Dist. Rajkot. Pan : Aadcs 1608 N 0 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assesseeby : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Ld.Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10/04/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/06/2023

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, ld.SR.DR
Section 250(6)Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)

Revenue against order of the ld.Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-2, Rajkot [hereinafter referred to as “the ld.CIT(A)”] dated 25.9.2019 passed under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short] for the Asst.Year2014-15. 2. The grounds raised in the appeal

Gordhanbhai Babubhai Dhaduk, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(3)(1), Surat

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

ITA 243/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Surat15 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.243/Srt/2023 (Ay 2016-17) (Hearing In Physical Court) Gordhanbhau Babubhai Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(3)(1), Surat, Aayakar Dhaduk, 16, Dharmajivan Vs Bhavan, Nr. Majura Gate, Society, Opp. New Opp. New Civil Hospital, Chaupaty, Varachha Road, Surat-395001 Surat-395006 Pan No. Aaupd 7509 H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

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

reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee. Further, NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the appeal on merit as per mandate of Section 250(6) of the Act. The Section 250(6) mandates that order of Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) shall contain the points for determination, decision thereon ... record. Moreover, the order of ld CIT(A) is not in consonance with the mandate of order 250(6) of Income Tax Act. Section 250(6) mandate that the order of ld CIT(A) must contain the point of determination, decision thereon and reasons of such decisions. Thus, considering

Shri Bharatbhai Manubhai Baldha, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(3)(1), Surat

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

ITA 240/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Surat15 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.240/Srt/2023 (Ay 2013-14) (Hearing In Physical Court) Bharatbhai Manubhai Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(3)(1), Surat, Aayakar Baldha, 11-12, Vs Bhavan, Nr. Majura Gate, Ishwerkrupa Society, L.H. Opp. New Civil Hospital, Road, Trikamnagar-2, Surat-395001 Varachha, Surat-395006 Pan No. Ahtpb 5940 Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

passed ex parte order without discussing merit of the case and the impugned order is not as per the mandate of Section 250(6) of the Act. The Ld. AR for the ae submits that the observation of Ld. CIT(A) in para-3 of the order on the part

Shri Amandeep Singh, Kapurthala vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA no

ITA 59/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar14 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.59/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 251(2)Section 44ASection 69A

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

Punnu Synthetics Private Limited, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- 5 (4), Amritsar

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

ITA 35/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 144oSection 250(6)Section 250oSection 69A

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

Shri Ramchandra Dhopeshwarkar, Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward 2(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 913/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Ramchandra Vs. International Tax Dhopeshwarkar, 404/11J Ward 2(1)(1) Neelam Nagar Chs, Room No. 1724, 17Th Phase Ii, Gavan Pada, Floor, Air India Building, Mulund (E), Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400081 Mumbai - 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Afrpd9868F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Soumendu Kumar Das Date Of Hearing 08.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.06.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-56, Mumbai, Dated 15.01.2023 For A.Y. 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-56, Mumbai, Is Bad In Law On Various Grounds Apart From Being Passed In Gross Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal In Limine On The Alleged Ground Of Delay In Filing The Appeal Without Giving Any Opportunity & Without Appreciating The Fact There Is Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Factually Incorrect. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Dealing With The Grounds Of Appeal Raised Before Him Despite Receiving The Remand Report From The Ld. Ao.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Soumendu Kumar Das
Section 115BSection 144Section 148Section 69A

days is not justified. The ld. CIT(A) ought to have adjudicated the issue contested in appeal on merit as contemplate under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, we restore this case to the file of the ld. P a g e | 4 Shri Ramchandra Dhopeshwarkar

M/S Svadeshi Enterprise (Hubli), Mumbai vs. ITO 17(3)-2, Mumbai

The appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 877/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailm/S Svadeshi Enterprise Vs. Ito 17(3)(2) (Hubli) 12-A, 1St Floor, Mumbai – 400 020 Yusuf Building, Veer Nariman Road, Flora Fountain, Mumbai – 400 023 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aapfs0181B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Tejas Chandarana Respondent By : Harmesh Lal Date Of Hearing 07.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.06.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Passed By The Nfac, Delhi, Dated 15.03.2023 For A.Y. 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing The Ex-Parte Order & Thereby Confirming The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer The Learned Cit (A) Has Erred In Not Granting Proper Opportunity Of Hearing To The Appellant. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Disallowance Of Compensation Paid To M/S. Svadeshi Enterprise (Mumbai) Amounting To Rs.10,00,00,000/-. 3. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Disallowance Of Commission & Brokerage Expenses Of Rs.1,12,36,000/- The Appellant Craves Leave To Add To, Amend, Alter Or Delete All Or Any Of The Foregoing Grounds Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Tejas ChandaranaFor Respondent: Harmesh Lal
Section 143(2)Section 250(6)

ought to have adjudicated the issue contested the appeal on merit as per the material available on the record as contemplate in section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act that, the ld. CIT(A) would determine point in dispute and therefore, record reason on such point in support

Taksonz Developers and Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 25(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2696/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Delhi12 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Sh. N. K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2013-14 Taksonz Developers & Ito Infrastructure Ltd Vs Ward- 25 (1) 4348/4C, Ansari Road, New Delhi Darya Ganj, New Delhi- 110001 Pan No.Aaact6124D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 2(14)(iii)Section 246Section 250(6)Section 271

Worthy CIT(A) through his order dated 08.09.2022 has erred in passing that order in contravention of the provisions of section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without providing the opportunity of being heard. 3. The assessing officer did not consider the order of the fellow