“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)

Aman Thukral, Ludhiana vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Ludhiana

Accordingly, Additional Ground No. 1 is allowed for statistical

ITA 886/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Pankaj Bhalla, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Mangal, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250(6)Section 69C

Counsel for the assessee submitted that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is not in accordance with the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. It was submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has merely reproduced the findings of the Assessing Officer and the submissions

Timba Muvadi Dudh Mandali, Mahiasagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Lunawada

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1874/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Tr Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Uday Kakne Kishanrao, Sr. DR

Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 271ASection 69C

C-2480 Elayangaram Paccs, Tirupattur vs. ITO, Tirupathur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4037/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.4037/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 C-2480 Elayanagaram Assessment Unit, Primary Agricultural V Nfac, Income Tax Cooperative Credit Society, S. Department, Elayanagaram, Tirupattur. Ito-Che-W- Pan: Aahfc7142G (146)(2), Chennai. Appellant Respondent Assessee By Mr. Shyam Sundar – Ca Revenue By Ms. V Awasthay – Jcit Date Of Hearing 17/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 11/03/2026 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Delhi [‘The Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69Section 80P(2)(a)

written submissions and evidences through the Income-tax portal, acknowledgements for which are available on record. 3. The impugned order is violative of section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 5. the Appellant Society's lack of technical knowledge and unfamiliarity with electronic proceedings, and 6. the Appellant

M.P.N. College, Ambala vs. JCIT, Karnal

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 4081/DEL/2015[2010-11 (F.Y. 2009-10)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarm.P.N. College, Jcit, V & P.O. Mullana, Tds Range, Distt. Ambala. Vs. Karnal. Pan-Aabam2353E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Ms. Monika Singh, Cit-Dr Department By Date Of Hearing 20.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 11.03.2026 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against Order Dated 29.04.2015 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Panchkula [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’] Arising Out Of Penalty Order Dated 13.06.2012 Of The Ld. Assessing Officer/ Jcit, Tds Range, Karnal U/S 272A(2)(K) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That As Per Information Available With Department, The Person Responsible Deducted & Deposited Tds But Failed To File E-Tds Return Within Stipulated Period. The Due Dates Of Filing Of E-Tds Returns In This Case Were 15.07.2009, 15.10.2009, 15.01.2010 & 15.06.2010 For 1St To 4Th Quarters Of F.Y. 2009-10. The E-Tds Returns For Such Quarters Were Filed On 06.02.2012. Total Delay M.P.N. College Vs. Jcit

Section 250(6)Section 272A(2)(k)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Kaidvana Muvada P Dudh Utpadak Sahkari Mandali Limited, Panchmahal vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Godhra

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

ITA 2325/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR

Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 271ASection 69C

erred in law and on facts in confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer ex-parte in violation of the mandate under section 250(6) of the Act, which requires the Commissioner (Appeals) to dispose of the appeal through a reasoned order on each ground of appeal, irrespective ... appellate proceedings. The learned counsel further submitted that the order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is contrary to the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act which requires the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal by passing a reasoned order dealing with each ground of appeal raised

Rajendran Palanivelu, Pudukkottai vs. ITO Ward 1, Pudukkottai

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

ITA 3940/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3940/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 18.02.2026

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 234ASection 250Section 37(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH :: CHENNAI "ी इंटूर" रामा राव, लेखा

Sunil Suresh Rane, Dombivli vs. ITO Ward 42(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 7729/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarsunil Suresh Rane Vs. Ito Ward 42(3)(4) 301 Amrita, Apts, Rajaji Kautilya Bhawan C41- Path Lane 43, Avenue 3, Near No.4 Dombivli Videsh Bhavan, G Block Mumbai - 421201 Bkc, Gilban Area, Bkc, Bandra East Mumbai - 400051 Pan/Gir No. Abtpr2589P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Aakash Parekh (Virtually Present) Revenue By Shri Brajendra Kumar (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 29.09.2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2016-17. The Following Grounds Are Reproduced Below: “1. Ground No. 1: Gross Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251

without adjudicating the matter on merits and without dealing with the specific grounds raised by the appellant, in violation of the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act and therefore, the 3 impugned order, being non-speaking and devoid of proper reasoning, is bad in law and deserves

Rameshbhai Karshanbhai Myatra, Gandhidham vs. ITO, Ward-1, Gandhidham

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

ITA 846/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250(6)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND DR. DINESH MOHAN

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(2)(1), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate vs. Mumbai International Airport Limited, Mumbai

ITA 7035/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand V Mahadeokar

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 28Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35D

legal developments specific to the assessment year under appeal, and thereby failing to discharge the appellate duty of independent adjudication as mandated under section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? 9. The appellant craves the leave to add, amend, alter and/or delete any of the grounds of appeal ... additional grounds raised before him amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice as well as the statutory mandate contained in section 250(6) of the Act, which requires the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal by passing a speaking order dealing with each ground raised

Mumbai International Airport Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6692/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand V Mahadeokara.Y:2014-15 Mumbai International Vs. Dcit, Circle – 2(2)(1) Airport Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road 1St Floor, Terminal-1B, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – Chhatrpati Shivaji 400020. International Airport, Santacruz (E), Mumbai – 400099. Pan/Gir No. Aaecm6285C (Applicant) (Respondent) A.Y:2014-15 Dcit, Circle – 2(2)(1) Vs. Mumbai International Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road Airport Ltd., New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 1St Floor, Terminal-1B, 400020. Chhatrpati Shivaji International Airport, Santacruz (E), Mumbai – 400099. Pan/Gir No. Aaecm6285C (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Saurabha Soparkar Virtually Appeared Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand V Mahadeokar, Am: These Cross Appeals Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Under Section 250 Of The Mumbai International Airport Ltd., Mumbai Income-Tax Act, 1961 Dated 05.08.2025 In The Case Of The Assessee For Assessment Year 2014–15. The Assessment In The Present Case Was Originally Completed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 30.12.2017. Since The Issues Involved In The Appeals Of The Revenue As Well As The Assessee Arise Out Of The Same Appellate Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 28Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35D

assessment year under appeal, Mumbai International Airport Ltd., Mumbai and thereby failing to discharge the appellate duty of independent adjudication as mandated under section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? 9. The appellant craves the leave to add, amend, alter and/or delete any of the grounds of appeal ... additional grounds raised before him amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice as well as the statutory mandate contained in section 250(6) of the Act, which requires the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal by passing a speaking order dealing with each ground raised

M/S Care India Solutions for Sustainable Development, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-14, Delhi

ITA 7439/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Sh. Pratik Arora, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Jain, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 25Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH 'E', NEW DELHI Before Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member & Smt. Renu

M/S Care India Solution for Sustainable Development, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-14, Delhi

ITA 7438/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Sh. Pratik Arora, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Jain, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 25Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH 'E', NEW DELHI Before Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member & Smt. Renu

M/S Care India Solution for Sustainable Development, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-14, Delhi

ITA 7437/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Sh. Pratik Arora, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Jain, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 25Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHIBENCH `E', NEW DELHI Before Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member & Smt. Renu Jauhri

M/S Vivek Construciton, Balco Nagar vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), Bilaspur

In the result, both appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 67/RPR/2026[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 66 & 67/Rpr/2026 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2021-22 & 2023-24) Vivek Construction, C-17, Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Housing Board Colony Balco Nagar, Tax, Circle-1(1), Ayakar Bhawan, Korba, Chhattisgarh, 495684. Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, Cg - 495001 Pan: Aaffv3390P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None. (Adjournment Petition Filed) राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Ms. Bharti Singh, Cit-Dr Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 06/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

For Appellant: None. (Adjournment petition filed)For Respondent: Ms. Bharti Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 36(1)(iii)

appeal after discussing the issue in detail and his reasons for agreeing with the assessment orders though he/she, as per provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, is obliged to dispose of the appeals in writing with well-reasoned orders on each point of determination arisen for his consideration ... orders before him/her, whether or not these issues have been raised by the assessee before him/her. 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

Vivek Construction, Balco Korba vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), Bilaspur

In the result, both appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 66/RPR/2026[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

For Appellant: None. (Adjournment petition filed)For Respondent: Ms. Bharti Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 36(1)(iii)

Harsha Bojarao Devraj, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 41(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 8012/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejveer SinghFor Respondent: Ms. Deepika Arora

Section 115BSection 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

Learned CIT(A) is required to deal with the issue raised by the Assessee on merits in view of the provisions contained in Section 250(6) of the Act. [CIT (Central) Nagpur vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) 4 Assessment Year 2017-2018 25/04/2016]. Accordingly

V Y Institute of Medical Science Private Limited, Raipur vs. ACIT-1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 480/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 250(6)Section 68

appeal after discussing the issue in detail and his reasons for agreeing with the assessment order though he/she, as per provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, is obliged to dispose of the appeal in writing with well-reasoned order on each point of determination arisen for his consideration ... order before him/her, whether or not these issues have been raised by the assessee before him/her. 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