“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)

Victory Marvel Seeds India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward (TDS)-2(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 879/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.722, 879 & 723/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015 & 2015-2016 Victorymarvel Seeds India The Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Ward-(Tds)-2(3), Secunderabad - Vs. Hyderabad. Pin – 500 004 500014 Pan Aaccv9056A. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Kumar Pal Tated राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Sri Krishna Moorthy K. Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 31.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao: These Three Appeals Ita Nos.722, 879 & 723/Hyd./2025 By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Three Separate Orders Dated 29.01.2025, 29.01.2025 & 12.02.2025 Of The Learned Cit(A)-National Faceless Appeal

For Appellant: CA Kumar Pal TatedFor Respondent: : Sri Krishna Moorthy K. Sr. AR

Section 200ASection 234E

were not decided on merits. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the learned CIT(A) are not in accordance with the provisions of Section 250(6) the Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, the impugned orders

Victorymarvel Seeds India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward (TDS)-2(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 723/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: CA Kumar Pal TatedFor Respondent: : Sri Krishna Moorthy K. Sr. AR

Section 200ASection 234E

Victorymarvel Seeds India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward (TDS)-2(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 722/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: CA Kumar Pal TatedFor Respondent: : Sri Krishna Moorthy K. Sr. AR

Section 200ASection 234E

Ivrcl Indore Gujarat Tollways Limted, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circe-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1427/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1427/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Ivrcl Indore Gujarat Vs. Dy.Cit Tollways Ltd, Hyderabad Circle 2 (1) Pan:Aacci2461C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: N O N E राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 31/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Ivrcl Indore Gujarat Tollways Ltd, (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 08.07.2025 For The A.Y. 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Cit(A) Is In Gross Violation Of The Provisions Of Law & Hence Is Bad In Law. 2 The Cit(A) Has Erred In Upholding The Order Of The Assessing Officer & Dismissing The Appeal.

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: : Smt. U. Mini Chandran, CIT(DR)

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 250(6)

adjudicated the same on merits. Even in an ex parte appellate order, the Ld. CIT(A) is statutorily bound under section 250(6) of the Act to dispose of each ground of appeal by passing a speaking and reasoned order on merits. Failure to do so amounts to a procedural

Ravinder Reddy Singidi, Vikarabad vs. ITO., Ward-1, Vikarabad

In the result, all the three appeals, i

ITA 1163/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad "ी रवीश सूद, माननीय

Ravinder Reddy Singidi, Vikarabad vs. ITO., Ward-1, Vikarabad

In the result, all the three appeals, i

ITA 1162/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Ravinder Reddy Singidi, Vikarabad vs. ITO., Ward-1, Vikarabad

In the result, all the three appeals, i

ITA 1161/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: making the additions to the appellant's income.

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Shri V. Natarajan (Individual), Rasipuram vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Salem

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA No

ITA 1801/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2015-16 V. Varadappan Natarajan/ The Acit, V. Natarajan (Individual), Central Circle, No.64-C, Rotary Nagar, Salem. Rasipuram Tamil Nadu-637 408. [Pan: Acgpn1477Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025

For Appellant: Mr.T.S. LakshmiFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 37Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘बी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरर, न्यागिक

Varadappan Natarajan, Rasipuram vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Salem

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA No

ITA 1535/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Mr.T.S. LakshmiFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 37Section 68

Naresh Chandra Jain, Jhansi vs. Income Tax Officer, Jhansi

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

ITA 402/AGR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

passed ex parte order merely supporting the assessment order etc. without any substantial discussion on merits, which is not in consonance with section 250(6) of the Act, whereas learned CIT(Appeals) was expected to state the points for determination, decision thereon and the reasons for the decision as provided

Smt. Satyawati Marwaha Through Legal Heir Sh, Chander Sheikhar Marwaha, Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

ITA 347/ASR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, C. A

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 144Section 144rSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250(6)Section 68

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

Smt. Satyawati Marwaha Through Legal Heir Sh. Chander Sheikhar Marwaha, Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

ITA 346/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, C. A

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 144Section 144rSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250(6)Section 68

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

Pannalal Rampher Yadav, Silvasa vs. ITO, Silvassa

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

ITA 647/SRT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

Section 250(6)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH “SMC” SURAT BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH

Kamlesh Naginbhai Lad, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-3(2)(6), Surat

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

ITA 589/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Kamlesh Naginbhai Lad, Ito Ward-3(2)(6) 59 Yogeshvar Park, Near Rekha Room No. 109, 1St Floor, Income Park, Adajan, Hajira Road, Vs. Tax Office, Anavil Business Surat-395009. Centre, Adajan, Surat-395007. Pan No. Aaqpl 7195 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Esmayeel, Saherwala, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 250Section 69A

trite law that the first appellate authority, being a quasi-judicial forum, is statutorily obliged under judicial forum, is statutorily obliged under Section 250(6) Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 tax Act, 1961 to dispose of the appeal to dispose of the appeal by a speaking

Kapil Chamanlal Setia, Dhule vs. Addl/Joint/Dy/Asst.CIT/ITO, Itd, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 810/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.810/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143(3)Section 250

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

Satyamev Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward 1(1), Nashik

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

ITA 2036/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2036/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Satyamev Nagari Sahakari V The Income Tax Officer, Patsanstha Maryadit, S Ward-1(1), Nashik. 1, Maratha Tower, Raviwar Karanja, Nashik – 422001. Maharashtra. Pan: Aakas2833C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Eknath Abhang – Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 30/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This 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.2021-22 Dated 17.06.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated

Section 147Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 80P

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

Gola Sizzler RG, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(5), Gurgaon

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6076/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 6076/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Gola Sizzler Rg, Vs Income Tax Officer, Sco 39, Sector-29, Dlf Qe S.O. Ward-1(5), Gurgaon, Haryana-122002 Gurgaon-122001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajfg4815E Assessee By: Sh. Ravi Pratap Mall, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1078603624(1) Dated 17.07.2025, In Proceedings U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Ravi Pratap Mall, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. 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

Masroor Ahmad, Saharanpur vs. ITO Ward 3(3)(2), Saharanpur

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6031/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 6031/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Masroor Ahmad, Vs Income Tax Officer, 10/20, Shormiyan, Near Chatta Ward-3(3)(2), Jambudaas, Saharanpur, Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh-247001 Uttar Pradesh-247001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adgpm7232H Assessee By: None Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1078968680(1) Dated 28.07.2025, In Proceedings U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member ITA No

Mohit Satija, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 43(6), Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4517/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 4517/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Mohit Satija, Vs Income Tax Officer, C-399, Pitampura, Saraswati Vihar, Ward-43(6), Delhi-110034 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Bdaps6791Q Assessee By : Sh. Ankit, Ar Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2025 Order

For Appellant: Sh. Ankit, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 250(6)

Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). 5. This is indeed coupled with the facts that there is also no 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

Deepak Jain, Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-26, Delhi

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

ITA 3416/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 115BSection 69A

each ground of appeal after discussing the issue in detail and his reasons for agreeing with the assessment order. As per provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of the appeal in writing after stating the points for determination ... such orders or vary it so as to either to enhance or to reduce the penalty. 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