“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)

Anjaneyulu Reddy Ammireddy, Vinukonda vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Narasaraopet

ITA 542/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.542/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) Vs. Anjaneyulu Reddy Ammireddy, Income Tax Officer, Vinukonda. Ward-1, Pan: Aelpa3332C Narasaraopet. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/11/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 19/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 25/07/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 29/02/2024. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 69

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Visakhapatnam Bench, Visakhapatnam Before Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member

Kalpana Ravish Maru, Malegaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Malegaon

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for

ITA 1724/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj Dandgaval, CAFor Respondent: Shri Uodol Raj Singh, DR

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

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

Kineta Global Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 800/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.800/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Kineta Global Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Hyderabad. Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Pan: Aacck7944A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Sri S. Venkateswarlu, Tax Consultant रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/11/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 19/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 03/03/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”) Dated 21/02/2024 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessee Company

For Appellant: Sri S. VenkateswarluFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 250(6)

held as bad in law as the Ld. CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order in terms of section 250(6) of the Act. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend the above grounds of appeal before or in course of hearing.” 2. Succinctly stated

Rajender Singh, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle- 32, Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5498/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2023-24

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

For Appellant: Sh. Vinod Kumar Garg, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT-DR

Section 144Section 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Belagavi vs. M/S Potdar Brothers, Belagavi

Appeals of the Revenue are PARTLY ALLOWED for statistical purposes in aforestated terms

ITA 180/PAN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 132Section 133ASection 138Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253(2)

tandem for all the years without vouching key evidences & merits of the cases but by outdoing the provisions of rule 46A (supra) and section 250(6) of the Act. ITAT-Panaji Page 9 of 16 M/s Potdar Brothers ITA Nos.175 to 177 & 179 to 180/PAN/2025 7 The sum & substance

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Belagavi vs. M/S Potdar Brothers, Belagavi

Appeals of the Revenue are PARTLY ALLOWED for statistical purposes in aforestated terms

ITA 179/PAN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 132Section 133ASection 138Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253(2)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Belagavi vs. M/S Potdar Brothers, Belagavi

Appeals of the Revenue are PARTLY ALLOWED for statistical purposes in aforestated terms

ITA 177/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 132Section 133ASection 138Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253(2)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Belagavi vs. M/S Potdar Brothers, Belagavi

Appeals of the Revenue are PARTLY ALLOWED for statistical purposes in aforestated terms

ITA 176/PAN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 132Section 133ASection 138Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253(2)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Belagavi vs. M/S Potdar Brothers, Belagavi

Appeals of the Revenue are PARTLY ALLOWED for statistical purposes in aforestated terms

ITA 175/PAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 132Section 133ASection 138Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253(2)

Dipak Dadaji Khairnar, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 1, Malegaon

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

ITA 1917/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2016-17 Dipak Dadaji Khairnar Ito, Ward-1, Malegaon At Post Kotbel, Baglan, Vs. Nashik – 423204 Pan: Anipk9825E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanket Joshi (Through Virtual) Department By : Smt N C Shilpa, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 17-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18-11-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Sanket Joshi (through virtual)For Respondent: Smt N C Shilpa, Addl.CIT

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250(6)Section 69Section 69A

assessee for which he dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. However, he has not decided the appeal on merit as per provisions of section 250(6) of the Act which reads as under: “250….. …..…… (6) The order of the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal

Shrolenson Marbaniang, Shillong, Meghalaya vs. ITO W-2 Shillong, Shillong, Meghalaya

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 225/GTY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: And Therefore Notice Issued In The Name Of The Dissolved Assessee Could Not Be Served & Hence As Ex-Parte Assessment Order As Well As Appellate Order. The Ld. Ar Also Referred To The Order Passed By Cit(A) U/S 250 Of The Act Dated 22.05.2025 & Submitted That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal In Limine Without Deciding The Issues On Merit Which Is In Violation Of Section 250(6) Of The Act. The Ld. Counsel

Section 250Section 250(6)

submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limine without deciding the issues on merit which is in violation of section 250(6) of the Act. The Ld. Counsel 2 Shrolenson Marbaniang finally prayed that the appeal may be restored to the file of AO so that ... assessee failed to respond on the appointed date of hearings. We also note that the appellate order has been passed in violation to section 250(6) of the Act which provides that the Ld. CIT(A) would be obliged to set out the point of determination, his decision

Naveen Mahipal, Bikaner vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 98/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. S

Karan Singh Dogra, Noida vs. Income Tax Officer, Noida

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 338/IND/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Ms. Shalini Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 250(6)

instance 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. It is therefore

New Mangalore Port Road Company Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), Delhi

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

ITA 1053/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.1053/Del/2025, A.Y. 2015-16 New Mangalore Port Road Deputy Commissioner Of Company Limited, Income Tax, Circle-16(1), D-21, Corporate Park, Vs. C. R. Building, I P Estate, Sector-21, Dwarka, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabcn9106E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Khushboo Singhal, Ca Respondent By Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 21/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2015-16 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.09.2022 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

Section 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 36(1)(iii)

before him/her, whether or not these issues have been raised by the assessee before him/her. 10. 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

Yasir Bilal Khan Prop. Ms Khan Impex Fruit Mandi, Parimpora Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle Jammu, Srinagar

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

ITA 332/ASR/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

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

For Appellant: None

Section 131Section 144Section 250(6)Section 69

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

Kulathumkuzhiyil Muhammed Ashraf, Kottayam vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Kottayam, Kottayam

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

ITA 622/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Years: 2018-19 Kulathumkuzhiyil Muhammed Ashraf .......... Appellant Kulathumkuzhiyil, Velloor, Kottayam 686501 [Pan: Bzvpa6849J] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-2, Kottayam .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Prashanth Srinivas, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.11.2025 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 23.06.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 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 Act Was Filed For Ay 2018-19. Based On The Information That The Appellant Received Interest Income From United India Insurance Company Ltd. Or Rs. 29,03,429/- During The Previous Year Relevant To Assessment Year Under Consideration, The Ao Formed An Opinion That Income Escaped Assessment To Tax. Accordingly, A Notice U/S. 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Was Issued On 2 Kulathumkuzhiyil Muhammed Ashraf 31.03.2022. The Appellant Neither Complied With The Notice U/S. 148 Nor U/S. 142(1) Of The Act Issued By The Ao Calling For Certain Information. In The Circumstances, The Ao Was Constrained To Pass Best Judgement Assessment By Bringing To Tax The Interest Income Of Rs. 29,03,429/- As Unexplained Money Of The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM Assessment Years: 2018-19 Kulathumkuzhiyil Muhammed

Chadralop Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Aurangabad vs. Exemption Ward, Aurangabad, Maharashtra

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for

ITA 778/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vijay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S Pathak, ARFor Respondent: Shri Uodol Raj Singh, DR

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

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

Jagdish Dattatrya Aradhye, Latur vs. ITO Wrad, Latur

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

ITA 1047/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vijay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Uodol Raj Singh, DR

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)

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

Vishal Associates, Kanpur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(4), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 641/LKW/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 40A(3)

prosecution and has not decided the appeal of the assessee on the merits and has not passed a speaking order. Under section 250(6) of the I. T. Act, the learned CIT(A) has statutory duty to pass a speaking order on merits on the various grounds of appeal filed ... pass de novo order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee; in conscious compliance of section 250(6) of the I. T. Act. (D) In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open court on 13/11/2025) . Dated

Ramesh Seth, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 45(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 4782/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

parte. However, it appears that the Ld. CIT(A) has not dealt with the matter on merits in terms of provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act by passing a reasoned order on merits on the issue raised before him and hence in our considered opinion the matter requires