← 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)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1 Noida, Noida vs. M/S Allure Developers Private Limited, Noida

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3558/DEL/2025[2019]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 37Section 41Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

placed reliance on the detailed submissions filed before us, which reads as under: That the CIT(A), while disposing of the appeal under section 250(6), conducted 1. independent enquiries from the SFIO as well as Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. After due verification, the CIT(A) deleted the additions

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1 Noida, Noida vs. M/S Ace Residency Pvt. Ltd, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3493/DEL/2025[2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 37Section 41Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

placed reliance on the detailed submissions filed before us, which reads as under: That the CIT(A), while disposing of the appeal under section 250(6), conducted 1. independent enquiries from the SFIO as well as Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. After due verification, the CIT(A) deleted the additions

Ramesh R Havele, Pune vs. ITO Ward-3(5), Pune

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

ITA 57/PUN/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa Khare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL

Gurkripa Enterprises, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 40(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 1594/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 119Section 250Section 30Section 43

dismissed the appeal after perusing the contents of the assessment order on account of non-prosecution and without considering the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. 7. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 8. Rival contentions

M.A. Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 4(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1273/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Nov 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 250

made before the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, the appeal was dismissed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) without considering the provision of section 250(6) of the Act. Hence, in the interest of justice and fair play, the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) is set aside and the matter

Tukaram Ganpat Vinode, Vinode Vasti vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(4), Pmt Building

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

ITA 2433/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2433/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Tukaram Ganpat Vinode, Vs Ito Ward 2(4), Vinode Vasti Hinjewadi Pune Pune, Pune-411057 Pan-Aenpv5673D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade-
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण "बी" न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH, PUNE BEFORE Dr. MANISH BORAD

Vipul Kumar Tulsian, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 5, Panvel

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

ITA 2431/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2431/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Vipul Kumar Tulsian, Ito Ward 5, Vs F 1203, Patel Heritage, Panvel Kharghar, Sector 7, Navi Mumbai, Navi Mumbai- 410210

For Appellant: Shri Chintan ShahFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade-
Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण "बी" न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH, PUNE BEFORE Dr. MANISH BORAD

Chairman Florida Estate B Co Op Housing Society Limited, Pune vs. DCIT, Cir-7, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1986/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Subas P. Bora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Milind Debaje, JCIT –DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250Section 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL

Chairman Florida Estate B Co Op Housing Society Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle 7, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1704/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Subas P. Bora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Milind Debaje, JCIT –DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250Section 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL

Shri Mohammad Amin Sofi, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Srinagar

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

ITA 358/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Bashir Ahmad Lone, C.A
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250(6)Section 69A

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

Raj Kumar Agarwal, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(2)(1), Surat

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

ITA 398/SRT/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Nov 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.398/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2023-24) (Hybrid Hearing) Raj Kumar Agarwal, Vs. Ito, B-303, Megh Malhar Apartment, Ward – 2(2)(1), Near Vidhya Bharti School, Bhatar Surat Road, Surat - 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abtpa0902D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2025

Section 115BSection 154Section 250Section 250(6)

considering the contentions of both parties, we find that the Addl./JCIT(A) has not passed an order as per the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act and dismissed the appeal of assessee by upholding the findings of the AO, CPC. The ex parte order passed ... clearly violative of the express provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. The underlying rationale of the provision ITA No.398/SRT/2025/AY.2023-24 Raj Kumar Agarwal is that such orders are subject to further appeal to the appellate Tribunal. Speaking order would obviously enable a party to know precise points decided

Puthur Kulangara Jacob Pauly, Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Thrissur

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

ITA 754/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2016-17 Puthur Kulangara Jacob Pauly .......... Appellant Puthur Kulangara House, Alagappanagar P.O. Mukundapuram, Thrissur 680301 [Pan: Arapp8842J] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Thrissur .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Lokanathan, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 04.06.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual. No Regular Return Of Income Under The Provisions Of Section 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Was Filed By The Appellant For Ay 2016-17. As Per The Information Flagged In Accordance With The Risk Management Strategy Formulate By The Cbdt & Evidence In Possession, The Appellant Had Sold Immovable Property In Ay 2015- 16 For A Consideration Of Rs. 1,14,80,000/-. Accordingly, The 2 Puthur Kulangara Jacob Pauly Assessment Unit Of Income Tax Department (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Issues A Notice U/S. 148 Of The Act On 06.03.2023. In Response To The Notice U/S. 148, The Appellant Filed Return Of Income On 05.04.2023 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 12,500/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Ao Vide Order Dated 28.02.2024 Passed U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act At A Total Income Of Rs. 45,73,680/-. While Doing So, The Ao Made Addition Of Rs. 45,61,180/- On Account Of Short Term Capital Gain.

For Appellant: Shri Lokanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM Assessment Year: 2016-17 Puthur Kulangara

Ganesh Ramnath Dhoot, Sambhajinagar vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Auranganad, Aurangabad

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

ITA 2367/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Santosh Garud, CAFor Respondent: Shri Milind Debaje, JCIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL

Sriyans Enterprises Limited, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1298/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1298/Kol/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Sriyans Enterprises Limited, Vs Ito Ward-5(1), Kolkata 22, Brb Basu Road, 1St Floor, Room No.14, Kolkata-700001 Pan No. :Aaics 4667 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Anil Kumar Dugar, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sima Das Biswas, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 16/10/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 13.11.2024 Passed For Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Filed Belated By 136 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported With An Affidavit Stating Sufficient Reasons For Delay. The Contents Of The Application Are As Under :- Before The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench Ref: Appeal Petition Filed On: In The Matter Of : - An Application For Condonation Of The Delay In Filing The Memorandum Of Appeal Against The Appellate Order Dated 13-11- 2024 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-2017; & In The Matter Of The :- A Memorandum Of Appeal Filed Under The Income Tax Act, 1961; & In The Matter Of: -

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Dugar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sima Das Biswas, Sr. DR

Authority dismissed the appeal without discussing the points of determination, decision thereon and reason for such decision, which is a gross violation of section 250(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961 2. For that, the Ld. Appellant Authority is under legal obligation to discuss all the points of determination

Sahara Welfare Foundation, Kolkata vs. DCIT (Exemptions), Circle - 1, Kolkata

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

ITA 1492/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 164(2)Section 1l

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT

Shahbaz Mohammed Shafeeque, Malegaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Malegaon

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

ITA 2291/PUN/2025[2015 - 16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Nov 2025

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2291/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shahbaz Mohammed V The Income Tax Officer, Shafeeque, S. Ward-1, Malegaon. House No.904, Lane No.2, Malegaon City S.O., Malegaon, Nashik, Malegaon – 423203. Maharashtra. Pan: Cfppm6844A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi (Virtual) Revenue By Smt Saumya Pandey Jain-Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: In This Case, Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commisioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2015-16 Dated 28.02.2025. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

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

Sachin Shantilal Khiwansara, Beed vs. Income Tax Officer, Aurangabad

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

ITA 2288/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2288/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sachin Shantilal Khiwansara, V The Income Tax Officer, Main Road, Shirur Kasar, S. Ward-1(5), Aurangabad. Shirur So., Beed, Beed – 413249. Pan: Bytpk1339N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Saurabh D.Khivansara Revenue By Smt Saumya Pandey Jain-Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: In This Case, Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commisioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17 Dated 17.07.2025. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. That On Facts & In Law, The Ex-Parte Order Of Ld. Cit Appeals, Nfac Is Opposed To Law & Against The Principles Of Natural Justice & Accordingly The Impugned Appellate Order Is Liable To Be Set Aside.

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

despite the appellant having filed a Statement of Facts and Grounds of Appeal along with Form 35. This is in clear violation of section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, which mandates that the CIT APPEALS shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons ... report the result of the same to him as found in Section 250(4) of the Act. 5 ITA No.2288/PUN/2025 [A] 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

Bb Buildhome Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4258/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 250(6)

hearing mechanism could not be altogether ruled out. This is indeed coupled with the facts that there is also no effective compliance to section 250(6) of the Act in the impugned lower appellate order stipulating points of determination to be framed followed by a detailed adjudication thereupon

Manideep Mago, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle 27, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1419/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Ms. Sakshi Rustagi, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT-DR
Section 250(6)

Mago Vs. ACIT are of the considered view that the CIT(A) has not decided the appeal in accordance with the provisions of section 250(6). Further, we find that the assessee ought to have been given sufficient and adequate opportunity of being heard. Therefore, in the interest of justice

Alok Kumar, Madhepura vs. ITO Ward 3(5), Saharsa

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

ITA 467/PAT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna19 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraalok Kumar, Ito Ward-3(5), S/O Sri Dasrath Mehata, Saharsha Village- Ganeshpur, M.S. Vs Yogiraj, Purani Madhepura, Dist- Madhepura – 852116 (Bihar) (Pan: Bpkpk1186D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : K.P. Jalan, Ar Respondent By : Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 16.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2025 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit(A) Dated 14.05.2024. 2 Alok Kumar, Ay: 2012-13 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: K.P. Jalan, ARFor Respondent: Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 292BSection 54F

case as proper representation was not made either before the Ld. AO or even before the Ld. CIT(Appeals). We note that section 250(6) casts a duty on the Ld. CIT(A) to pass an order in appeal which should state the points for determination and a decision