← 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)

Aniket Singal, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

In the result, all the above appeals are allowed

ITA 1146/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 939/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Aniket Singal बनाम The DCIT 4, Amritashergil Marg, New Delhi- 110003 Central Circle-1 Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: CZCPS6126E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1145/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Aarti Singal बनाम The DCIT 53, Jor Bagh, New Delhi-110003 Central Circle-1 Chandigarh स

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, C.A’sFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “ए” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING

Aarti Singal, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

In the result, all the above appeals are allowed

ITA 1145/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 939/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Aniket Singal बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-1 Chandigarh 4, Amritashergil Marg, New Delhi- 110003 स्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: CZCPS6126E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1145/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Aarti Singal बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-1 Chandigarh 53, Jor Bagh, New Delhi-110003 स

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, C.A’sFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “ए” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING

Shree Aishwarya Laxmi Mahila Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 9(3), Pune

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

ITA 114/PUN/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.114/Pun/2026 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Shree Aishwarya Laxmi Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Mahila Nagari Sahakari Ward-9(3), Pune Patsanstha Maryadit, Plot No.16, Vijaynagar Colony, Vadgaon, Tal. Maval, Dist. Pune 412 106 Maharashtra Pan : Aaaam7430P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir JainFor Respondent: Shri Dayanand Jawalikar
Section 147Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.114/PUN/2026

Mustafa Jainuddin Amreliwala, Jalgaon vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Jalgaon

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

ITA 1993/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1993/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Mustafa Jainuddin Amreliwala, Vs. Income Tax Officer, C/O. M/S. Jainuddin Brothers, Ward-1(1), Jalgaon 169, Bhawani Peth, Jalgaon – 425 001 Maharashtra Pan : Agwpa0152F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vinay KawadiaFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath
Section 144Section 147Section 250(6)Section 69

merits of the case and merely countenanced the view point of the Assessing Officer. Ld.CIT(A) in view of the mandatory provisions of section 250(6) is duty bound to identify the issues to be adjudicated in such appeal and state in clear terms the decision arrived thereon ... ld.CIT(A)/NFAC with a direction to adjudicate the same denovo in accordance with law and pass a speaking order in terms of section 250(6) of the Act. Impugned order is set aside and grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Assessee is also

Babasaheb Bhagawan Atkire, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle 7, Pune

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 1369/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1368 & 1369/Pun/2025

Section 143(3)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL

Babasaheb Bhagawan Atkire, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle 7, Pune

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

ITA 1368/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1368 & 1369/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Babasaheb Bhagawan Atkire, Vs. Dcit, Circle-7, S.No.50/3, Flat No.9, Floor No.1, Pune Kure Plazapune, Opp. Konark Pooram Main Gate, Kondhwa Khurd, Pune 411048, Maharashtra Pan : Afepa8628K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Suhas Bora and Shri Sampada IngaleFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath
Section 143(3)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL

Veera Reddy Posham, Nalgonda vs. ACIT, Central Circle1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, ITA.No.1830/Hyd

ITA 1830/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.Nos.1829 & 1830/Hyd/2025 Assessment Years 2020-2021 & 2022-2023 Veera Reddy Posham, The Acit, Nalgonda – 508 246 Central Circle-1(1), Vs. Telangana. Hyderabad. Telangana. Pan Aijpp0376P (Applicant) (Respondent) -None- िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By : राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 13.03.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 10Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234FSection 250(6)Section 270ASection 80CSection 80C(2)(xvii)

erred in not adjudicating the appeal on merits despite the fact that documentary evidence was available/could have been called for, thereby violating section 250(6) and the principles of natural justice.  The order of the learned CIT(A) is non-speaking, cryptic, and contrary to the settled law that every

Veera Reddy Posham, Nalgonda vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1829/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita.Nos.1829 & 1830/Hyd/2025

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 10Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234FSection 250(6)Section 270ASection 80CSection 80C(2)(xvii)

erred in not adjudicating the appeal on merits despite the fact that documentary evidence was available/could have been called for, thereby violating section 250(6) and the principles of natural justice. • The order of the learned CIT(A) is non-speaking, cryptic, and contrary to the settled law that every

Suresh Kumar Pal, Mumbai vs. ITO Wad-22(3), Mumbai

ITA 723/MUM/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 250(6)Section 56(2)(vi)

Learned CIT(A) is required to deal with the issue raised by the Assessee on merits in view of the provisions contained in Section 250(6) of the Act. [CIT (Central) Nagpur vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) 25/04/2016]. Accordingly, we deemed it appropriate

Navdeep Singh, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle - 13, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 401/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Hon’Ble & Shri Naveen Chandra, Hon’Ble

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 40Section 68

401/DEL/2021 Navdeep Singh vs DCIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH

Brahmaputra Infrastructure Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle 15, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 5130/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Hon’Ble & Shri Naveen Chandra, Hon’Ble

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 68

5130/DEL/2018 Brahamputra Infrastructure Ltd IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Shanti Devi Jain Memorial Trust, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Ward Exemption, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 1293/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Years: 2013-14

Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 80G

assessee against the order dated 05.12.2017, passed by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Muzaffarnagar (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)), under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as, “Act”] for Assessment Year 2013-14. The assessment order in this appeal is passed

Bajaj Educational Society, Ludhiana vs. ITO Exemptions Ward, Jalandhar

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

ITA 225/ASR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: None
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (PHYSICAL HEARING) BEFORE SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH

Yasir Nisar Wani, Srinagar vs. ITO, Srinagar

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

ITA 100/ASR/2024[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Mar 2026AY 2008-2009

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Vaseem Ahmad, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (VIRTUAL HEARING) BEFORE SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH

Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, Dhamtari vs. ITO, Ward-Dhamtari, Dhamtari

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 687/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 685, 686 & 687/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16) Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward Dhamtari, Gandhi Chowk, Kurud, Shankardan Road, Village:Haraftarai, Dhamtari-493663, Chhattisgarh. Dhamtari-493773, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aqdpc2033J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Veekas S Sharma, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 12/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Veekas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 2(14)(iii)Section 250

discussing the issues in detail and his/her reasons for agreeing with the assessment order and penalty orders though he/she, as per provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, is obliged to dispose of the appeals in writing with well-reasoned order on each point of determination arisen ... orders before him/her, whether or not the issues have been raised by the assessee before him/her. On cumulative consideration of the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act read with sections 250(4), 250(5), 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) of the Act and Explanation of section

Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, Dhamtari vs. ITO, Ward-Dhamtari, Dhamtari

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 686/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 685, 686 & 687/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16) Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward Dhamtari, Gandhi Chowk, Kurud, Shankardan Road, Village:Haraftarai, Dhamtari-493663, Chhattisgarh. Dhamtari-493773, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aqdpc2033J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Veekas S Sharma, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 12/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Veekas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 2(14)(iii)Section 250

discussing the issues in detail and his/her reasons for agreeing with the assessment order and penalty orders though he/she, as per provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, is obliged to dispose of the appeals in writing with well-reasoned order on each point of determination arisen ... orders before him/her, whether or not the issues have been raised by the assessee before him/her. On cumulative consideration of the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act read with sections 250(4), 250(5), 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) of the Act and Explanation of section

Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, Dhamtari vs. ITO, Ward-Dhamtari, Dhamtari

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 685/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 685, 686 & 687/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16) Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward Dhamtari, Gandhi Chowk, Kurud, Shankardan Road, Village:Haraftarai, Dhamtari-493663, Chhattisgarh. Dhamtari-493773, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aqdpc2033J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Veekas S Sharma, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 12/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Veekas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 2(14)(iii)Section 250

discussing the issues in detail and his/her reasons for agreeing with the assessment order and penalty orders though he/she, as per provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, is obliged to dispose of the appeals in writing with well-reasoned order on each point of determination arisen ... orders before him/her, whether or not the issues have been raised by the assessee before him/her. On cumulative consideration of the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act read with sections 250(4), 250(5), 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) of the Act and Explanation of section

Jagdishchandra Shantilal Chhatralia, Gujarat vs. Assesing Oficer, Rajkot

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

ITA 623/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 623/Rjt/2025

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND DR. DINESH MOHAN

Shri Vishal Vasant Bandewar, Pune vs. DCIT Cir- 2, Pune

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

ITA 22/PUN/2026[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali, CIT DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

granting any adjustment, dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. Further, he has not decided the appeal on merit as per provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. He accordingly submitted that in the interest of justice, the matter may be restored to the file ... also an admitted fact that the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC has not decided the appeal on merit as per provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that given an opportunity, the assessee is in a position to substantiate

Deep Automotive, Beed vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Aurangabad

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

ITA 2832/PUN/2025[2023-2024]Status: HeardITAT Pune12 Mar 2026AY 2023-2024

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha (virtual)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)

aside with direction to the ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits as per the provisions of section 250(6) of Income Tax Act. (Rs. 12,73,140/-) 2) That the learned Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in making an addition