← 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)

Gourav Bhagwandas Agarwal, Pune vs. ITO Ward 8(1), Pune

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

ITA 894/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Digambar SurwaseFor Respondent: Shri Manish M. Mehta
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 69A

determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision. Thus, in our view, his order is in violation of the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. 11. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice and without going into

Renu Sanjay Rekhi, Panvel- Raigad vs. DCIT Panvel, Panvel

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

ITA 2377/PUN/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2377/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri KushiramFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 69C

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

Shrimadurjit Seva Kendra, Pune vs. The ITO, Ward 8(3), Pune

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

ITA 2276/PUN/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2276/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shrimadurjit Seva Kendra, V The Income Tax Officer, S.No.117/1, Chowisawdi, S. Ward-8(3), Pune. Haveli, Pune – 412105. Pan: Absfs4340L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Amit Bobde –Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: In This Case, Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Additional/Joint Commisioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Panaji Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2013-14 Dated 31.07.2025. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Addl./Jt.Cit(A), Panaji Erred In Law & On Facts In Dismissing Appellant'S Appeal Without Granting Sufficient Opportunity Of Being Heard. Appellant Assures To Make All The Compliances Before The

Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234ESection 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

make further inquiry and report the result of the same to him as found in Section 250(4) of the Act. Further Section 250(6) of the Act obliges the CIT(A) to dispose of an appeal in writing after stating the points for determination and then render a decision

Savita Mitkari, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Pune

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

ITA 2193/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2193/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Savita Mitkari, V The Income Tax Officer, Flat No.302, G4, Gangadham S Pmt Phase Ii, Market Yard, Building Pune 411037. Commercial Complex, Swargate, Pune 411037. Pan: Arppm8052L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Ca Sagar Kale Shri Arvind Renge – Addl.Cit(Dr) Revenue By Date Of Hearing 06/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal) [Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2011-12 Dated 30.07.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Act, Dated 30.12.2018. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

make further inquiry and report the result of the same to him as found in Section 250(4) of the Act. Further Section 250(6) of the Act obliges the CIT(A) to dispose of an appeal in writing after stating the points for determination and then render a decision

Shree Vishal Jewellers, Pune vs. DCIT Circle 9 Pune, Akurdi Pune

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

ITA 1975/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1975/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shree Vishal Jewellers, Dcit, Circle-9, Pune Kohinoor Arcade, Nigdi, Pune-411044 Vs. Pan : Achfs8052R अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sushant Padhye Department By : Shri Udaya Bhaskar Jakke Date Of Hearing : 11-11-2025 Date Of 28-11-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.07.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Error In Additions Of Rs.6,25,94,300/- In Respect Of Provision Of Section 68 Of The Act. The Ao Erred In Appreciating The Complexity Of Assessee'S Business & Made Addition Based On Conjecture Rather Than Evidence. Addition Was Made Merely By Treating Excess Balance Of Cash As Unexplained Credits Thereby Ignoring The Circumstances In Which Such Cash Was Recorded. 2. Error In Additions Of Rs.82,96,610/- In Respect Of Provision Of Section 68 Of The Act. The Ao Made An Addition In Haste Without Completely Understanding The Facts Of The Case. This Addition Belies A Sense Of Proportion. A. Addition Of Rs.46,96,610/- Of Unsecured Loan Forwarded By Mrs. Sangeeta Sonigara: The Officer Erred In Appreciating The Fact That The Loan Could Have Been Given By The Said Person From Gifts Received Or Through Other Exempt Income Earned In The Past. Merely Because The Person Doesnt Not Have Sufficient Income In The Immediately Previous Years Does Not Invalidate The Genuineness Of The Unsecured Loan. B. Addition Of Rs.37,00,000/- Of Unsecured Loan Forwarded By Mr. Ganesh Nadha: The Said Person Is A Third Party. Unsecured

For Appellant: Shri Sushant PadhyeFor Respondent: Shri Udaya Bhaskar Jakke
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision. Thus, in our view, his order is in violation of the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. 9. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice and without going into

Aligarh Wine Shop Co, Aligarh vs. ITO Ward 4(1)(1), Aligarh

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

ITA 387/AGR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra27 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 250Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH

Ravi Kant Luthra, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1), Amritsar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 444/ASR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 444/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Ravi Kant Luthra, 1-Patel Vs. Adit, Cpc, Chowk Guru Bazar, Amritsar. Bengaluru. [Pan:-Alnpk7173Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Himanshu Gupta, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA

Sonali Mahendra Naik Gaunekar, Panaji vs. Asst. Unit, NFAC, I. T. Department, Delhi

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 312/PAN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji27 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Naveen Kumar [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253(1)Section 263Section 50CSection 50C(1)

confirming or reducing or enhancing or annulling’ the assessment. Further while doing so the Ld. NFAC in view of the mandatory provisions of section 250(6) was duty bound to identify the issues to be adjudicated in such appeal, ITAT-Panaji Page 7 of 8 Sonali Mahendra Naik Gaunekar

Shri Jyoti Multipurpose Souhard Sahakari Sangh Nyt Examba, Examba, Chikodi, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Nippani, Belagavi

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 172/PAN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji27 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2022-23 Shri Jyoti Multipurpose Souharda Sangh Niyamit Examba, Chikodi, Belgavi-591244 Pan:Aabas2730D . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Shivanand Halbhavi [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ish Gupta [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 144Section 250Section 251Section 251(1)Section 253(1)

before Ld. NFAC with a direction deal therewith de-novo in accordance with provision of law and pass speaking order in terms of section 250(6) of the Act. 7. In result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, the order pronounced

Gram Nirman Mandal, Nawada vs. Dc/Ac Exemption, Cir, Patna

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

ITA 336/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna27 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10Section 11Section 143(3)Section 250

mandatory. Therefore, the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) is hereby set aside as the same was not being made as per section 250(6) of the Act and the appeal was dismissed merely on account of non-prosecution. By considering the totality of the facts and circumstances

Suresh Kumar Kejriwal, La Gardina App. Shree Nagar, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer, Aaykar Bhawan, White Church Road, Indore

ITA 266/IND/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 144

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT

Sachin Prakashchand Aanchaliya, Aurangabad vs. ITO Ward 1 (1), Aurangabad

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

ITA 2345/PUN/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Nov 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 250(4)

make further inquiry and report the result of the same to him as found in Section 250(4) of the Act. Further Section 250(6) of the Act obliges the CIT(A) to dispose of an appeal in writing after stating the points for determination and then render a decision

Vishnu Ganpat Gaikwad, Raigad vs. ITO, Ward-1, Panvel

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

ITA 2138/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2138/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Ivanna Hazel SoansFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Shahakar
Section 10(37)Section 147

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

Sanjay Champalal Jaiswal, Nanded vs. ITO, Ward-1, Nanded

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

ITA 2135/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2135/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Govinda PrasadFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Shahakar
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

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

Western Maharashtra Development Corporation Ltd., Shivajinagar vs. DCIT Circle-12, Pune

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

ITA 1967/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1967/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sharad VazeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250(6)

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

Balwant Vasantrav Jadhav, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Nashik

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

ITA 1101/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1101/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Respondent: Shri Udol Raj Singh
Section 147Section 250(6)

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

Rahul Jain, Indore vs. ITO Ward-1, Morena

In the result, both the appeals ITA No

ITA 421/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR

Rahul Jain, Indore vs. ITO Ward-1, Morena

In the result, both the appeals ITA No

ITA 420/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR

Umesh Garg, Agra vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Agra

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

ITA 406/AGR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR

Dawar Infrabuild Pvt Ltd, Agra vs. Dy Comm of Income Tax, Agra

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

ITA 400/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 56

appreciated. However, we note that learned CIT(Appeals) has tried to pass the impugned order on merits, but not in true spirit of section 250(6) of the Act, whereas the ld. CIT(Appeals) was 2 | P a g e expected to state the points for determination, decision thereon