“ Section 250(6) ”

Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT

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.

223 ITR 480 · 1997 · High Court

2,040

CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another

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.

118 ITR 461 · 1997 · Supreme Court

1,656

CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)

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.

297 CTR 614 · 2017 · High Court

659

Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors.

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.

2 SCC 107 · 1987 · Supreme Court

451

CIT v. Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

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.

372 ITR 619 · 2015 · High Court

391

New Diwan Oil Mills v. CIT

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.

296 ITR 495 · 2008 · High Court

351

Inder Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh

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.

2025 INSC 382 · 2025 · Supreme Court

267

ITA 2468/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

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)

Nikhil Rameshchand Ranka, Wardha vs. ACIT, Centrl Circle 1(1), Pune

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Vardhaman L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153C(1)Section 250

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

Nikhil Rameshchand Ranka, Wardha vs. ACIT, Central Circle 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 2467/PUN/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Vardhaman L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153C(1)Section 250

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

Narendar Aale, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-11(5), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 954/HYD/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Oct 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.954/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2021-22) Shri Narendar Aale, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward 11(5), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Amxpa3425A (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Villa Mouni Mani Kumar, Advocate. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Inturi Rama Rao : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad Dated 07.03.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-22. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual. The Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2021-22 Was Filed On 23.03.2022 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.5,00,830/-. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment Vide Order Dated 22.12.2022 Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”)

For Appellant: Shri Villa Mouni Mani KumarFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR

ITA 741/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘SMC’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

Bharat Kumar Jain Premchand, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle - 1(2), Hyderabad

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.741/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2022-23) Shri Bharat Kumar Jain Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Premchand, Tax, Central Circle 1(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aqvpp1066C (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: None रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Inturi Rama Rao : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad [Cit(A)] Dated 21.02.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2022-23 On 30.07.2022 Declaring Income Of Rs.3,86,750/-. The Telangana State Police Seized Cash Of Rs.7,35,000/- From The Assessee After Following

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR

ITA 1184/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘SMC’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

Srinivas Arra, Karimnagar vs. ITO., Ward-2, Karimnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1184/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Shri Srinivas Arra, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-2, Karimnagar. Karimnagar. Pan: Aespa4907Q (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P. Vinod, Advocate. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 08.11.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual. The Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2017-18 Was Filed On 30.03.2018 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,80,730/-. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment Vide Order Dated 27.09.2021 Passed U/S.147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The

For Appellant: Shri P. Vinod, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR

Section 147Section 250(6)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘SMC’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

Mandavilli Veera Venkata Satyanarayana, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1136/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1136/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2016-17) Shri Mandavilli Veera Venkata Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Tax, Circle 6(1), Hyderabad. Satyanarayana, Hyderabad. Pan: Aflpm8942M (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Inturi Rama Rao : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 26.06.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual. The Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2016-17 Was Filed On 30.03.2017 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.20,85,590/-. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment Vide Order Dated 18.12.2018 Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR

ITA 3300/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘SMC’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

Shri Inamul Haq, Saharanpur vs. ITO, Saharanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Inamul Haq S/O Sh. Mohd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Yamin, Vill.Megh Chhappar, Ward-2. Ambalaa Road, Saharanpur (U.P) Saharanpur Pan: Aaiph2840K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250(6)Section 50CSection 54Section 54FSection 54F(4)

assessee is against order dated 29.03.2016 of Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-, Muzaffarnagar (hereinafter referred as “the Ld. CIT(A)”) under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( hereinafter referred as “the Act”) arising out of assessment order dated 17.03.2015 of the Learned Assessing Officer/The Income

Nitu Khadariya, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Ncrb Building

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1360/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.L. Yadav, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary,JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 69A

dismissing the appeal on account of non-compliance of notices issued by him, but he was consciously aware that in view of Section 250(6) of the Act, the CIT(A) has no power to dismiss an appeal on account of non-prosecution, as held by various judicial forums

Bhawani Developers, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-4(1), Lucknow-New

Appeal is disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid

ITA 253/LKW/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 68

taken by the assessee on merits as well. In this context, it will be useful to refer to relevant provisions of law under section 250(6), section 250(7) and section 251(1) of I. T. Act, which are reproduced below for the ease of reference: Section-250 (6 ... other case, he may pass such orders in the appeal as he thinks fit.] (C.2.1) It is helpful to notice that section 250(6) of the I. T. Act uses the words "points for decision” (i.e. plural number) and “order” (i.e. singular number). The implication is obvious; one 'order

Bajaj Housing Finance Limited, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-8(1), Pune

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

ITA 1608/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Respondent: Appellant by Shri Nikhil Mutha

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 270ASection 270A(9)

issue on merits and accordingly, the order passed by the Hon'ble CIT(A) is not in compliance with the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, thereby the order is void-ab-initio 4. Ground No. 4 - Non consideration of application filed by the Appellant under section 270AA

Kasiraj Rengappa, Tamilnadu vs. ITO, Ward Int. Tax 1(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 414/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Kasiraj Rengappa Vs Ito, 6313, Clover Hill Drive, Ward-1(1)(1) San Jose Foreign, International Taxation, United States Of America Or Civic Centre, Minto Road, [Indian Address] - 3/226, New Delhi-110002. Navaneethkrishnapuram Sevlkulam, Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu-627754. Pan-Brjpr2094A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri T.Vasudevan, Adv. (Through Vc) Respondent By Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 09.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.10.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.12.2021 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi-42 [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-42/10502/2019-20 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 26.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is Nri & Earned Income From Interest Only During The Year & Filed His Return Of Income On 17.03.2018, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 85,320/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny By Issue Of Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Acton 24.09.2018. Thereafter Notices Were Issued U/S 142(1) In Response To Which Assessee Filed Reply From Time To Time. The Ao Observed That Assessee Deposited Cash In Sbn During Demonetization Period From 09.11.2016 To 30.12.2016 Into His Bank Account With State Bank Of India, Nro Account No.33350651335 Of Inr 22,50,000/-. After Considering The Submission Filed, Ao Passed The Order On 26.12.2019 U/S 143(3) Of The Act Wherein Total Income Of The Assessee Was Assessed At Inr 23,35,320/-.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)

ITA No.414/Del/2022 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “D” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI

Sree Anantalakshmi Textiles Pvt Ltd, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward-1, Eluru

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

ITA 402/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.402/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2020-21) Sree Anantalakshmi Textiles (P) Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer – Tds Ward-1 C/O. Nsl Textiles Limited Income Tax Office, Kks Towers Engee House, 3Rd Floor, 4Th Line R.R. Pet, Eluru – 534002 Chadramouli Nagar, Guntur – 522007 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aadcs1442E] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate : Dr. Aparna Villuri,Sr.Ar राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.10.2025

Section 201(1)Section 40

prayed that the Ld.CIT(A) may be directed to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits in accordance with provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. Page. No 5 I.T.A.No.402/VIZ/2025 Sree Anantalakshmi Textiles (P) Ltd., 9. Per contra, Ld. Departmental Representative [hereinafter in short “Ld.DR”] strongly

Srinivasarao Kolasani, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 433/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.433/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Shri Srinivasa Rao Kolasani, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Hyderabad. Ward 9(1), Pan: Ahwpk6333P Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Snsr Chinmai, Adv. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 08/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Inturi Rama Rao : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 26.10.2023 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual. The Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2017-18 Was Filed On 15.02.2019 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,76,020/-. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment Vide Order Dated 21.12.2019 Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The

For Appellant: SNSR Chinmai, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, DR

ITA 1285/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘SMC’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

Pallavi Anadha Vrudhaashramam, R R District vs. ITO (Exemptions), Ward-1(3), Hyderabad

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1285/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2022-23) M/S. Pallavi Anadha Income Tax Officer Vs. Vrudhaashramam, (Exemptions), Ward 1(3), Hyderabad. R.R. District. Pan: Aabtp6928R (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 06/10/2025 Hearing: घोर्णध की 08/10/2025 तधरीख/Pronouncement: आदेश/Order Per Inturi Rama Rao : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 13.06.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Providing Shelter & Support To Old Age Beggars On Road Sides, Services To Mentally Retarded Persons To The Women & Old Age People. The Return Of

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 250Section 250(6)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘SMC’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

Kurubarahalli Prathamika Krushi Pathina Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha, Ramanagaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ramanagar

In the result, all three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 350/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing

ITA 349/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

have considered the rival submissions. We notice that the ld. CIT(A) has passed the orders without following the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act. The section requires the ld. CIT(A) to state points for . ITA No.348, 349 & 350/Bang/2025 Page 4 of 4 determination, decision thereon

Kyasapura Vevasaya Seva Sahakara Bank Niyamitha Kyasapur, Ramanagaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ramanagar

In the result, all three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing

ITA 348/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Prathamika Krushi Pathina Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha Sugganahalli, Ramanagaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ramnagar

In the result, all three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing

ITA 3283/MUM/2024[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2025AY 2000-01

Geetanjali Exports, Mumbai vs. 24(1)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankargeetanjali Exports., 103, Madhupuri Shopping Centre, Vallabhbhai Road, Vile Parle West, Mumbai - 400056 ............... Appellant Pan: Aaafg3712D

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 250(6)

compliance with notices, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without adjudicating the grounds raised by the assessee on merits, as required under section 250(6) of the Act. We find that in CIT v/s Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), reported in [2016] 69 taxmann.com 407 (Bombay), the Hon’ble Jurisdictional

Syed Mudessir, Saharanpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5341/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 5341/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Syed Mudessir, Vs Income Tax Officer, 9/832, Mohala Pilkhana Tala, Ps Ward-29(1), Mandi Samiti Saharanpur, New Delhi-110002 Uttar Pradesh-247001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acsph9926N Assessee By: None Revenue By : Ms. Ambika Agarwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.10.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13, Arises Against The Addl./Jcit(A)-2, Mumbai’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1064312462(1) Dated 24.04.2024, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Ambika Agarwal, Sr. DR