← 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)

Smt. Kanta Shroff, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 28(1), New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

ITA 3851/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishrasmt. Kanta Shroff, Acit, B-25/3, Okhla Industrial Estate Circle-28(1), Phase-Ii, New Delhi. Vs. New Delhi. Pan-Aaops1059H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Nitin Gulati, Adv. Department By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/11/2025 O R D E R Per Sudhir Pareek, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [‘Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Dated 20.05.2025 Passed U/S 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. At The Outset, It Is Seen That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Dismissed By The Ld. Cit(A) For Non-Prosecution. Before Us, The Ld. Ar Submitted That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Issued Several Notices Which Were Not Received & They Were Uploaded The Portal Of The Department, However, The Appellant Was Not Aware Of The Proceedings Nor Such Notices Were Brought To His Knowledge By The Accountant Of The Appellant, Therefore, The Compliance Could Not Be Made Either Before The Learned Ao Or Before Smt. Kanta Shroff Vs. Acit The Cit(A) & Accordingly Prayed That The Matter May Be Sent Back To The File Of The Learned Ao For Fresh Adjudication.

Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH

Yuga Printpack Private Limited vs. ITO Ward-2(3), Fbd

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

ITA 3849/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH

Kiran Agrawal, Raipur vs. ITO, Dhamtari

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of over aforesaid observations

ITA 655/RPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 655/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2022-23)

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Petition filed)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 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

Kripa Shanker, Patna vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1), Patna

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

ITA 117/PAT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 54

have considered the rival submissions and have also gone through the facts of the case and the documents filed. 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

Ramesh Kondiba Patil, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5(2), Pune

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

ITA 2065/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2065/Pun/2025 Assessment Year 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar
Section 147Section 250(6)

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

Arjunsinh Madansinh Mohite Patil, Solapur vs. CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the two assessee(s) are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1624/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1620 To 1622 & 1624/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18

For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
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

Nandinidevi Vijaysinh Mohite Patil, Solapur vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the two assessee(s) are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1623/PUN/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1620 To 1622 & 1624/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18

For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
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

Arjunsinh Madansinh Mohite Patil, Solapur vs. CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the two assessee(s) are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1622/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1620 To 1622 & 1624/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18

For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
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

Arjunsinh Madansinh Mohite Patil, Solapur vs. CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the two assessee(s) are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1621/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1620 To 1622 & 1624/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18

For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
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

Arjunsinh Madansinh Mohite Patil, Solapur vs. CIT(Appeals) NFAC, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the two assessee(s) are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1620/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1620 To 1622 & 1624/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18

For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
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

14 Reels Venkatboyanapalli Jv, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal is dismissed for non-

ITA 969/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.617 & 969/Hyd./2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years 2018-2019 & 2017-2018

For Appellant: Mrs. K Prabhabati, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad 'B' Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

14 Reels Venkatboyanapalli Jv, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 1(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 617/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.617 & 969/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years 2018-2019 & 2017-2018 14 Reels The Dcit, Central Venkatboyanapalli Jv, Circle-1(3), Hyderabad. Vs. Hyderabad – 500 033. Pin – 500 004. Pan Aaaaz2224L Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा /Assessee By : Mrs. K Prabhabati, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12.11.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Learned Cit(A), Hyderabad- 11, Hyderabad, Dated 08.02.2025 & 13.03.2025 For The Assessment Years 2018-2019 & 2017-2018, Respectively.

For Appellant: Mrs. K Prabhabati, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 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 Commissioner (Appeals) to dispose of an appeal in writing after stating the points for determination and then render a decision

Ilam Singh Saini Proprietor of Shiv Engineering and Consultants, Noida vs. ITO Ward-5(1)(3), Noida

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed by the Ld

ITA 3823/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishrailam Singh Saini Proprietor Of Income Tax Officer, Shiv Engineering & Ward-5(1) (3), Consultants, Vs. Noida. D-113, Sector-7, Noida-201301 Uttar Pradesh. Pan-Aoups4088L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Manish Kumar Maurya, Adv. Department By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12 /11/2025 O R D E R Per Sudhir Pareek, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [‘Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Dated 03.04.2024 Passed U/S 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. At The Outset, It Is Seen That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Dismissed By The Ld. Cit(A) For Non-Prosecution. Before Us, The Ld. Ar Submitted That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Issued Notices Which Were Not Received & They Were Uploaded The Portal Of The Department, However, The Assessee Was Not Aware Of The Proceedings Nor Such Ilam Singh Saini Proprietor Of Shiv Engineering & Consultants Vs. Ito Notices Were Brought To His Knowledge By The Accountant Of The Assessee, Therefore, The Compliance Could Not Be Made Either Before The Ao Or Before The Cit(A). He Thus Prayed That The Matter May Be Sent Back To The File Of The Ao For Fresh Adjudication.

Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH

Nasreen Moin Qureshi, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-07, Delhi

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

ITA 3822/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH

Shashi Bhalla, Lakhimpur Kheri vs. ITO Range-3(5), Lakhimpur Kheri

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

ITA 675/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 44ASection 69A

demands at the CIT’s stage. However, in our opinion, the learned CIT(A) has failed to discharge the statutory role prescribed under section 250(6) of the Act, which is reproduced below for the ease of reference: Section-250 (6) The order of the™[Joint Commissioner (Appeals

Chetan Jeevanrao Jadhav, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Office, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1487/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1486 & 1487/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Chetan Jeevanrao Jadhav, Vs. Ito, Nfac, Delhi. 398, D Ward, Rankala Vesh Kolhapur- 416012. Pan : Ajtpj4233E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Pramod S. Shingte : Revenue By : Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia (Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 05.12.2024 & 06.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals As Per Respective Grounds Of Appeal Common Order. 3. There Is Delay In Filing Of Both The Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Application For Condonation Of Delay Duly Supported By An Affidavit That The Applicant Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeals Within The Prescribed Time Limit. After Hearing Ld. Dr, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate Both The Appeals.

For Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia (Virtual)
Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250(6)Section 69

Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in view of our above discussion, & also in the light of provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, we are of the considered opinion that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC ought to have decided each and every ground raised

Chetan Jeevanrao Jadhav, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1486/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1486 & 1487/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Chetan Jeevanrao Jadhav, Vs. Ito, Nfac, Delhi. 398, D Ward, Rankala Vesh Kolhapur- 416012. Pan : Ajtpj4233E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Pramod S. Shingte : Revenue By : Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia (Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 05.12.2024 & 06.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals As Per Respective Grounds Of Appeal Common Order. 3. There Is Delay In Filing Of Both The Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Application For Condonation Of Delay Duly Supported By An Affidavit That The Applicant Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeals Within The Prescribed Time Limit. After Hearing Ld. Dr, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate Both The Appeals.

For Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia (Virtual)
Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250(6)Section 69

Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in view of our above discussion, & also in the light of provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, we are of the considered opinion that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC ought to have decided each and every ground raised

Anju, Mewat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2) Gurgaon

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5822/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, 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

Khurshid Ahmad Dar, Jammu and Kashmir, India vs. ITO Ward, Udhampur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 236/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lalmeena, Hon'Ble & Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Hon'Blekhurshid Ahmad Dar Vs. Ito, Ward, Nully Poshwari Turkawangam, Udhampur Shopia, 192305, Jammu & Kashmir, India.Pin 192305. Pan No. Awmpd5664K Assessee By Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv. & Shri V.S. Aggarwal, Itp. Revenue By Mrs. Roshanta Kumari Meena, Cit Dr. Date Of Hearing 23.09.2025. Date Of Pronouncement To. [1 .2025. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.:

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151(1)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

respect to the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. That the order passed under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), is contrary to law and facts

Zoyieb Ali, Srinagah vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Srinagar

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

ITA 687/ASR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lalmeena, Hon'Ble & Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer, Zoyieb Ali Ward-1 170 A, Green Park Lane Bye Pass, Near Jamkash, Srinagar Kapurthala Pan:Akapa2889F Shri Rohit Kapoor, Advocate & Assessee By Shri V.S. Aggarwal, Itp Shri Charan Dass, Sr. Dr Revenue By 23.09.2025. Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement /A // .2025. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.:

Section 124Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH (PHYSICAL), AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. MITHA LALMEENA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI