← 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)

Nilesh Babubhai Kachhadiya, Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Surat

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

ITA 210/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Surat30 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Jayeshbhai Rasikbhai Rajani, A.C.I.T., 33, Sharda Vihar Society, Near Central Circle-1, Vs. Dharam Nagr, A.K. Road, Surat. Surat-395006. Pan No. Akwpr 3571 M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Nilesh Babubhai Kachhadiya, A.C.I.T., 94, Paramhans Society, B/S. Samast Central Circle-1, Vs. Patidar Wadi, Ambatalavadi, Surat. Katargam, Surat-395004. Pan No. Aqupk 7241 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 250(6)Section 254(1)Section 69A

case. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee without adjudicating the various grounds of appeal as per mandate of Section 250(6) of the Act. The ld AR for the assessee submits that the assessee has no intention to avoid the hearing before the ld. CIT(A), adjournment ... appeal. I further find that the ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the grounds of appeal raised by assessee as per mandate of Section 250(6) of the Act. Section 250(6) mandates that order of ld. CIT(A) must contain facts of the case, points of determination and decision

Jayeshbhai Rasikbhai Rajani, Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Surat

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

ITA 209/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Surat30 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Jayeshbhai Rasikbhai Rajani, A.C.I.T., 33, Sharda Vihar Society, Near Central Circle-1, Vs. Dharam Nagr, A.K. Road, Surat. Surat-395006. Pan No. Akwpr 3571 M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Nilesh Babubhai Kachhadiya, A.C.I.T., 94, Paramhans Society, B/S. Samast Central Circle-1, Vs. Patidar Wadi, Ambatalavadi, Surat. Katargam, Surat-395004. Pan No. Aqupk 7241 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 250(6)Section 254(1)Section 69A

case. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee without adjudicating the various grounds of appeal as per mandate of Section 250(6) of the Act. The ld AR for the assessee submits that the assessee has no intention to avoid the hearing before the ld. CIT(A), adjournment ... appeal. I further find that the ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the grounds of appeal raised by assessee as per mandate of Section 250(6) of the Act. Section 250(6) mandates that order of ld. CIT(A) must contain facts of the case, points of determination and decision

M/S. Mega Aims, Bharuch vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Bharuch

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

ITA 24/SRT/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.24/Srt/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) M/S Mega Aims Assistant Commissioner Of B-1, Gokuldham Complex, Income-Tax, Circle-1, Bharuch Vs. Dahej Bypass Road, Bharuch- 392001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqfm 1615 F (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Jagasheth, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ravinder Sindhu– CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

issues ground-wise in respect of the grounds raised by the assessee in memo of appeal as per the mandate of provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) has not examined assessment records and relevant documents, and has not passed speaking order. Besides, Assessing Officer

Shamji Maya & Sons, Bhuj vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Bhuj

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

ITA 93/RJT/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar"नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Shamji Maya & Sons, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Narayan Chambers, Ward-2, Bank Of Baroda Bldg., Bhuj-Kutch Station Road, Bhuj Pan : Abdfs 5703 J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25.01.2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Rajkot (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 19.02.2016 Passed U/S 250(6) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. 2. This Is A Recalled Matter. In The First Round Of Litigation, The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 30.07.2019 In Ita No.93/Rjt/2016 For The Assessment Year 2011-12, Had Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee. However, The Assessee Moved A Miscellaneous Application Praying Recall Of The Order On The Ground That The Alternate Contention Raised By The Assessee To Tax The Undisclosed Contract Receipts Of Rs.15,41,000/- On Estimated Basis, In View Of The Decision Of Hon’Ble Jurisdictional High Court In The Case Of Cit Vs.Industries, Reported In (2002) 124 Taxman 654 (Guj), As Relied Upon By The Assessee, Was Not Considered By The Tribunal While Adjudicating The Case. The Tribunal, Therefore, Vide Order Dated 16.09.2022 Recalled The Appeal In View Of The Judgement Of Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE MRS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR

Haier Appliances India P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-11(1), New Delhi

ITA 1458/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2023AY 2015-16
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)

Revenue, Sh. T. James Singson relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). (B.2.1) On perusal of section 250(6) of IT Act, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) was required by law to pass the order stating the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason ... with the direction to pass a denovo order in accordance with law with due regard to provisions under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act; after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. (C) For statistical purposes, the appeal is treated as partly allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court

Raipur Securities & Investment Limited, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur

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

ITA 104/RPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.104/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Raipur Securities & Investment Ltd. Mig 21, Indravati Colony, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aaccr4419F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

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

ACIT Circle-1, Ltu, New Delhi vs. Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Revenue’s appeals under consideration stand dismissed

ITA 6978/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri N.K. Choudhry

For Appellant: Sh. T. Kipgen, Ld. CIT/DRFor Respondent: Ms. Priyanka Sahi, Ld. CA
Section 250(6)

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

ACIT Circle-1, Ltu, New Delhi vs. Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Revenue’s appeals under consideration stand dismissed

ITA 6977/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri N.K. Choudhry

For Appellant: Sh. T. Kipgen, Ld. CIT/DRFor Respondent: Ms. Priyanka Sahi, Ld. CA
Section 250(6)

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

ACIT Circle-1, Ltu, New Delhi vs. Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Revenue’s appeals under consideration stand dismissed

ITA 6976/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri N.K. Choudhry

For Appellant: Sh. T. Kipgen, Ld. CIT/DRFor Respondent: Ms. Priyanka Sahi, Ld. CA
Section 250(6)

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

Punjab National Bank, Karnal vs. DCIT, TDS Circle, Panchkula

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 7493/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250(6)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND

Shri Jayantkumar Parshottambhai Vadodariya, Gondal, Dist. Rajkot vs. The ITO, Ward-2 (3) (5), Rajkot

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 25/RJT/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarasstt.Year :2012-13 Jayantkumar Parshottambhai Vadodaria Ito, Ward-2(3)(5) 9/11, Bhagvatpara Vs Rajkot. Opp: Rdc Bank Gondal, Rajkot. Pan : Aaxpv 6758 P

For Appellant: Shri B.D. Gupta, Ld.Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 263Section 69

assessee against order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(A)-2, Rajkot (in short referred to as ld.CIT(A) under section 250(6)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short), dated 17.1.2020 pertaining to the Asst.Year 2012-13. 2. At the time of hearing, neither

Shri Dhirajlal Ratilal Maniyar, Surendranagar vs. The ITO, Ward-5, Surendranagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 19/RJT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarasstt.Year :2011-12 Dhirajlal Ratilal Maniyar Ito, Ward-5 Dipak P. Shah & Co Vs Surendranagar. Cotton Hall, 1St Floor Main Road Surendranagar. Pan : Aycpm 1875 F

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri K.L. Soanki, ld.DR
Section 144Section 250(6)Section 69A

assessee against order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(A)-7, Ahmedabad (in short referred to as ld.CIT(A) under section 250(6)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short), dated 29.11.2019 pertaining to the Asst.Year 2011-12. 2. At the time of hearing, neither assessee

Jalaram Cottex, Jasdan vs. The Asstt. Commr. of Income Tax, Cir.-2, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 167/RJT/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2008-09 Jalaram Cottex Acit, Cir.2 Ahmedabad Highway Vs Rajkot. Jasdan.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Rajkot (in short referred to as CIT(A)), dated 27.02.2017 pertaining to Assessment Year 2008-09 under section 250(6) Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short). 2. At the time of hearing, neither the assessee nor any of its representative came present

Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Co. P.Ltd, Gurugram vs. JCIT, Range-74, New Delhi

Accordingly, the stay application is dismissed as

ITA 3018/DEL/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3018/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Jcit Vs. Co. P. Ltd., Range-74, Unit No. 303-304, 3Rd Floor, New Delhi. Baani Address One, Golf Course Road, Sector-56, Gurgaon, Haryana. Pan No. Aaach3005M अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & Stay Appl. No.413/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Jcit Co. P. Ltd., Vs. Range-74, Unit No. 303-304, 3Rd Floor, New Delhi. Baani Address One, Golf Course Road, Sector-56, Gurgaon, Haryana. Pan No. Aaach3005M अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 201Section 250(6)Section 271CSection 275(1)(c)Section 40

I.T.A.No.3018/Del/2022 & Stay Appl. No. 413/Del/2022 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 7, New Delhi vs. Power Links Transmission Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 7322/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Kalra, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vinod Kumar, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 250(6)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’ NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI N.K

Mohd Ayubabdul Moid Farooque, Vapi vs. ITO Ward-7, Vapi

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

ITA 277/SRT/2022[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Surat11 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.277/Srt/2022 (Ay 2011-12) (Hearing In Physical Court) Mohd Ayubabdul Moid Income Tax Officer, Ward-7, Farooque, Plot No.26, Ekta Fortune Square, 7Th To 9Th Vs Nagar, Nr. Gousiya Masjid, Floor, Chala Road, Vapi- Dungri Falia, Degam Road, 396191 Dungra,Vapi-396195 Pan No: Aampf 6714 E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

income of assessee and the NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) has 4 Md.Ayubabdul Moid Farooque not decided the case as per the mandate to Section 250(6) of the Act, which mandates that the while deciding the appeal, the ld CIT(A) is required to pass order on points of determination (grounds

Smt. Nirmalaben K. Sheth, Rajkot vs. The ITO-Ward-1 (2) (5), Rajkot

The appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 187/RJT/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Jan 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2007-08 Smt.Nirmalben K. Sheth Ito, Ward-1(2)(5) Office No.6 & 7, Vs Rajkot. A Wing 1St Floor Pramukh Swami Arcade Malaviya Road, Rajkot. Pan : Afxps 0582 H

For Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr.DR
Section 250(6)

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jamnagar (in short referred to as CIT(A)), dated 12.07.2019 pertaining to Assessment Year 2007-08 under section 250(6) Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short). 2. At the outset, it is brought to the notice of the Bench by the ld.counsel

Puneet Mangla, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 19(1) & (2), New Delhi

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

ITA 1524/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 54F

1 Puneet Mangla Vs. DCIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH : “F” NEW DELHI ] BEFORE DR. B. R

Aphrodite Infra Private Ltd., Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Surat

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

ITA 259/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), DR. A. L. SAINI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Modi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

also note that Ld. CIT(A) did not pass the order as per the mandate of previous of section 250(6) of the Act. We note that it is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being

ITO (E), Rohtak vs. Lahoria Education Society, Hisar

In the result, the appeal under consideration filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 5976/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Delhi04 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Jitender Chand, Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Navin Gupta, Ld. Advocate
Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’ NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI N.K