“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)

D K Mehta (HUF), Umbergaon vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Vapi

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

ITA 310/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Kaushikbhai Jitendrabhai Patel, I.T.O.,Ward 1(4), Amin Falia, Zadeshwar, Bharuch. Vs. Bharuch-392011. Pan No. Axlpp 0562 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue D.K. Mehta (Huf), I.T.O.,Ward-2, 11, At Post Solsumba, Gangadevi Vapi. Vs. Road, Umbergaon Road, Umbergaon-396165, Gujarat. Pan No. Aagdh 4494 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

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

deciding appeal ex parte without adjudicating the appeal on the grounds raised in For, No. 35 in terms of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The ld. CIT(A)-NFAC erred on facts and in law in confirming addition of Rs. 28,00,000/- by treating ... assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) finally 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 no notice was served on the assessee through email provided in Form-35 (Appeal

Kaushikbhai Jitendrabhai Patel, Bharuch vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Bharuch

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

ITA 260/SRT/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

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

Chandrakant Bhagwanji Popat, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir. 1(3), Surat

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 265/SRT/2022[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Surat02 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) Chandrakant Bhagwanji Popat, D.C.I.T., 54, Dev Deep Society, Circle-1(3), Vs. Ichchhanath Road, Surat. Surat. Pan No. Abnpp 1088 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 112Section 250(6)Section 254(1)Section 54F

That even otherwise, an order passed in limini without effectively disposing of the grounds raised by the appellant is in infraction of section 250(6) of the Act and as such, order so made is otherwise too illegal, invalid and a vitiated order. Cases relied upon – (a) Bimla Devi

Vishal Chandubhai Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward2(2)(5), Surat

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

ITA 168/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Surat02 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.168/Srt/2022 (Ay 202-13) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Vishal Chandubhai Patel, Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1/83 Tps, Timba-1, 2(2)(5), Aayakar Bhawan, Vs Kamrej, Majura Gate, Surat-394330 Surat-395001 Ph. 9099038121 Email: Chetanagarwalandco@Gmail.Com Pan No: Bncpp 6714 P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 25(6)Section 250(6)Section 254(1)Section 69A

assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) finally 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 is not much literate person and is living in the village

DCIT, Chennai vs. Siva Ventures Ltd., Chennai

The appeal of the revenue stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1417/CHNY/2016[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2022AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am.

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Ann L.Kapthuama (CIT) –Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250(6)

grounds raised by the assessee read as under: - 1. The order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax Appeals ["CIT(A)"] under section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("Act") confirming the order of the learned Assessing Officer ("AO") passed under section

Siva Industries and Holdings Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

The appeal of the revenue stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1390/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am.

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Ann L.Kapthuama (CIT) –Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250(6)

Academy of Higher Education, Trichy vs. DCIT Circle 1(2), Trichy

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 1973/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am.

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Ann L Kapthuama (CIT) –Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 194Section 250(6)

grounds raised by the assessee read as under: The order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax Appeals ["CIT(A)"] under section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (" the Act") confirming the order of the Assessing Officer ("AO") passed is not in accordance with law, contrary

Siva Industries and Holdings Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 1393/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am.

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Ann L Kapthuama (CIT) –Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 194Section 250(6)

Siva Industries and Holdings Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 1392/CHNY/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am.

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Ann L Kapthuama (CIT) –Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 194Section 250(6)

Samriddhi Petroproducts Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 580/HYD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2014-15 Samriddhi Petroproducts Vs. Dy. C.I.T Private Limited Circle 3(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aarcs2499F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate Mohd Afzal Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 15/12/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.09.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac, Delhi Relating To A.Y. 2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Wholesale & Retail Trade Of Auto Gas. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.09.2014 Declaring Nil Income After Setting Off Of Brought Forward Losses Of Rs.28,54,332/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) On 12.09.2016 Determining The Total Income At Rs.2,16,571/-. Subsequently, The Learned Cit Assumed

For Appellant: Advocate Mohd AfzalFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

decided the issue on merit by passing a speaking order as required u/s 250(6) of the I.T. Act. As per provisions of section 250(6) of the I.T. Act, the order of the CIT (A) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points

Mohamed Hussain Mahamed Harisai, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-5(5), Chennai

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

ITA 655/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.654 & 655/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Mohamed Hussain Mohamed Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Harissi, 10, Nethaji Nagar, Iind Street Non Corporate Ward 5(5), Tondiarpet, Chennai 600 081. Chennai 600 006. [Pan:Apepm2204H] (Petitioner By) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Petitioner By : Shri N. Arjunraj, Ca For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 10, Chennai Both Dated 01.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2010- 11 & 2011-12. 2. Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Time Barred By 277 Days Delay In Filing The Appeals Before The Tribunal. By Filing Condonation Petition In Support Of An Affidavit, The Assessee Has Explained As Under:

For Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250(6)Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव "ाियक

Mohamed Hussain Mahamed Harisai, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-5(5), Chennai

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

ITA 654/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

For Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250(6)Section 69A

Alibhai Vadasaria Zulfikar, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 17(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2403/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudharyalibhai Vadasaria Vs. Acit, Circle-17(1) Zulficar, 104, Dayal Room No. 117, 1 St Floor, Bhavan, Kesavji Naik Aaykar Bhavan, Road, Chinch Bunder, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400009 Mumbai - 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaapz0795P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Tanmay PhadkeFor Respondent: Mehul Jain

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69Section 69A

made compliance to the notices issued during the course of appellate proceedings. In this regard we have perused the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act which contemplates that the ld. CIT(A) would determine point in dispute and record reason of such point in support of his conclusion

M/S. Muktamani Distributors Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir -8(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2121/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. H. Usmani (DR)

Section 153ASection 2Section 250(6)

scenario, the Ld. CIT(A) was bound by law to decide the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee as per the Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) wherein the first appellate authority while disposing of appeal was duty bound to spell out points

Kismet Exports & Investments Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 12(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesseeITA No

ITA 7320/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 250(6)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 40Section 57

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHE (H), MUMBAI. BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE

Reliance Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT-CC-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 579/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice Preside & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora a/wFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. AR

Section 115JSection 143Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 32Section 92CSection 92C(3)

February. 2021) passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) 57, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the ‗learned CIT(A)'] under section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‗the Act‘), the present appeal is being preferred on the following grounds which, it is prayed, may be considered

ACIT -3(4), Mumbai vs. Reliance Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1438/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice Preside & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora a/wFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. AR

Section 115JSection 143Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 32Section 92CSection 92C(3)

Saharsh Laxmiratan Daga, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 17(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 491/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)Section 57Section 57o

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘H’ BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE

Shri Venkatesh Multi State Co.Op. Credit Soc. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cent. Cir-2(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 115/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Us:

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 80P

circumstances we restore this case to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide de novo on merit as contemplates in section 250(6) of the Act after affording opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to make proper compliance before the Ld. CIT(A) during appellate

Shri Venkatesh Multi State Co Op Credit Soc. Ltd, `Mumbai vs. ACIT Cent. Cir2(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 114/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Us:

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 80P