“Section 250(6)”

Vinodray Khodidas Antala, Dhoraji vs. ITO Ward 2(1)(1), Rajkot

In the result, the Appeal is hereby dismissed”

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 263/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Vindodray Khodidas Antala Vs. Income Tax Officer, Wd – 2(1)(1), C/O. Shree Jay Ambe Agro Fuel, Opp. Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Atul Oilcake, Jetpur Road, Road, Rajkot-360001 Rajkot-360410 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abppa8695M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Kuldeep K. Adesara, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 14/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm:

Commissioner of Income (Appeals), Income Tax Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in not complying the provisions of Section 250(4) and Section 250(6) of Income Tax Act, 1961 before passing impugned order by not examining the purchase deed of the Agricultural Land in question. 7. The learned ... Commissioner of Income (Appeals), Income Tax Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in holding that provisions of Section 250(4) and Section 250(6) of Income Tax Act, 1961 are not required to be complied if the Appellant has not made any written submissions in response to various hearing

Cherukuri Veeraju, Rajahmundry vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Rajahmundry

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.465/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Cherukuri Veeraju, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Rajahmundry. Of Income Tax, Pan:Abxpc6760H Circle-1, Rajahmundry. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 13/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 27/05/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Assessment Centre (Nafac), Delhi Under Section 271D Of The 2 Cherukuri Veeraju Vs. Dcit

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

Ananda Aqua Exports, Ganapavaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bhimavarm

thereby violating theprinciples of natural justice. 3. The disposal of the appeal in limine by the Ld. CIT(A) is against theprovisions of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. 4. The learned CIT (A) ought to have appreciated the fact that when assessee has explained the sources before

Byas Prasad Verma, Kushinagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(4), Kushinagar

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Byas Prasad Verma V. The Income Tax Officer Vill. Dhaurahara Ward 2(4) Nadwa Bishunpur Kushinagar Fazilnagar, Kushinagar (U.P) Tan/Pan:Amupv6031E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.07.2023, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits To The Tune Of Rs.16,45,000/- In His Saving Bank Account. In Order To Examine These Facts, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Reopened The Case Of The Assessee Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act. Thereafter, The Ao Issued Statutory Notices To The Assessee, Requiring The Assessee To Furnish The Source Of Cash

appellant for receiving pension & for business use of his real son. 4. BECAUSE the learned CIT(A) NFAC has failed to appreciate that section 250(6) of I.T. Act 1961 makes it obligatory for him to adjudicate each and every ground of appeal and then dispose of the same

Prakash Gupta, Gopalganj vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2 (4), Siwan

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

same remained unexplained therefore, the addition was confirmed and the grounds of appeal were dismissed. 7. In this respect, 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