← 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)

Shalom Charitable Ministries of India, Palakkad vs. ITO (Exemption), Thrissur

ITA 545/COCH/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 12A(1)(b)Section 14Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

Nagpur vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) wherein it was held that in view of the provisions contained in Section 250(6) of the Act the first appellate authority is required to deal with the issue raised by the assessee on merits while adjudicating the appeal

Kwality Overseas Private Limited, Ludhiana vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana

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

ITA 553/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 553/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 Kwality Overseas Private Limited 863, Industrial Area-A, Ludhiana बनाम The DCIT Ludhiana स्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: AABCK6381J अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 07/08/2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 144Section 147Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(b)Section 69Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “ए” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING

Lakhvir Kaur, Mohali vs. DCIT/ACIT(Cen)-2, Chandigarh

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are

ITA 1165/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Sept 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 65BSection 69C

raised following grounds in its appeal in ITA No 1164/Chd/2024 for the Assessment Year 2020-21: 1. That the order passed under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad in law and against the facts of the case. 2. That the CIT (A) has erred

Lakhvir Kaur, Mohali, Chandigarh vs. DCIT/ACIT(Cen)-2 Chd, Chandigarh

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are

ITA 1164/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Sept 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 65BSection 69C

raised following grounds in its appeal in ITA No 1164/Chd/2024 for the Assessment Year 2020-21: 1. That the order passed under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad in law and against the facts of the case. 2. That the CIT (A) has erred

Sunil Ramkrishana Patole, Nashik vs. ITO, Nashik

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

ITA 1329/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.1329/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Sunil Ramkrishna Patole Vs Ito, Ward 3(1) Plot No. 29, Vinchur Road, Nashik Datta Nagar, Yeola- 423401 Maharashtra Pan-Aompp1953M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ashish BhalgatFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)

back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjudication on merits and to pass a speaking order as contemplated in section 250(6) of the Act. Needless to mention that proper opportunity of hearing shall be granted to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant

Mukteswar Rao Pasumarthi, Khammam vs. ITO., Ward-1, Khammam

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 745/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद ‘एस एम सी-बी’ बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘SMC-B

Sanjay Singal (HUF), New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 221/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “बी” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING

Sanjay Singal, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 220/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “बी” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING

Aniket Singal, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 219/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “बी” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING

Aarti Singal, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 218/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “बी” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING

Aarti Singal, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 217/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “बी” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING

Mr. Vijaykumar Pramanad Sethi, Jalna vs. ITO Ward 1, Jalna

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

ITA 464/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

without himself going into the merits of the case. Thus, in our view, his order is in violation of the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. 9. Considering the totality of the facts and in the circumstances of the case enumerated above, we deem

Mr. Narayan Chunilal Jaiswal, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2 (1), Jalgaon

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

ITA 1803/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1803/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr.Narayan Chunilal Jaiswal, V The Income Tax Officer, Ayodhya Nagar, S Ward-2(1), Jalgaon. Varangaon-425307. Pan: Acwpj1153H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ambarnath Khule - Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 04/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/09/2025 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 A.Y.2017-18 Dated 22.01.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under : “The Assessment Order Passed By The Id. Ao & Confirmed By The Id. Cit(A). Nfac, Is Bad & Void Ab Initio & Also Against The Principles Of Natural Justice.

Section 144Section 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 CIT(A) to dispose of an appeal in writing after stating the points for determination and then render a decision

Yugal Madhukar Khairnar, Satana vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1, Malegaon

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

ITA 1322/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1322/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Yugal Madhukar Khairnar, V The Income Tax Officer, Dongrej Virgaon, Satana, S Ward-1, Malegaon. Dist-Nashik, Nashik – 423301. Pan: Anmpk4805E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S. Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Ambarnath Khule - Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 04/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/09/2025 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 A.Y.2012-13 Dated 24.03.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under : “1. On The Basis Of The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Assessing Officer Is Not Justified In Making Addition Of Rs. 22,94,000/-

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 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 CIT(A) to dispose of an appeal in writing after stating the points for determination and then render a decision

Shri Jayshivrai Nagri Sahakari Patsanstha Limited, Kolhapur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Kolhapur

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

ITA 1257/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1257/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Jayshivrai Nagri Sahakari V The Income Tax Officer, Pathsanstha Limited, S Ward-1, Kolhapur. 2832B Ward Yamula Devalaya Najik Karveer, Kolhapur – 416012. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaqas6598A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar– Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 13.11.2024 For The A.Y.2018-19 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated

Section 147Section 250Section 250(4)Section 270ASection 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

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

Hemraj, Noida vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(1)(3), Noida

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2082/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Sh. Malav Goswami, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, 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

Harun, Ghaziabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Bulandshahr

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2076/DEL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. Manish

Pleasure Agro Private Limited (As A Successor - in Interest of Erstwhile Vishwaraja Properties and Consultancies Private Limited, Pune vs. DCIT Circle 8, Pune

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

ITA 944/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Digambar SurwaseFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha
Section 143(3)Section 250

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

Pleasure Agro Private Limited (As A Successor - in Interest of Erstwhile Vishwaraja Properties and Consultancies Private Limited, Pune vs. DCIT Circle 8, Pune

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

ITA 943/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Digambar SurwaseFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha
Section 143(3)Section 250

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

Cian Agro Industries & Infrastructure Limited, Nagpur vs. ACIT (It) Circle 1, Pune

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

ITA 676/PUN/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Sept 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh P Shah (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 133(6)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

deciding the issues on merits by passing a speaking order. Thus, in our view, his order is in violation of the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case enumerated above, we deem it fit, in the interest