“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)

Dilip Pathak, Satna vs. ITO, Ward-1 Satna, Ministry of Finance

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

ITA 64/JAB/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur19 Aug 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144Section 147Section 250(6)

decided the appeal of the assessee on the merits and has not passed a speaking order. In view of provisions of section 250(6) of the I. T. Act, that the learned CIT(A) has statutory duty to pass a speaking order on merits on the various grounds of appeal

Rita Manchani, Jabalpur vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Jabalpur

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

ITA 60/JAB/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur19 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144BSection 147Section 250(6)

I.T.A. No.60/JAB/2024 Assessment Year:2013-14 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH “SMC”, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI ANADEE

Rashmi Gupta, Sagar vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Katni Circle, Katni

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

ITA 143/JAB/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 154Section 250(6)

Herald Publications Pvt. Ltd, Panaji vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Assessment Unit, Delhi

ITA 160/PAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji19 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 160/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Herald Publication Pvt. Ltd. Ag-6, Campal Trade Centre, Opp. Taj Vivanta, H/H Mili, Panaji, Goa-403001 Pan : Aaach4580K . . . . . . . Appellant V/S National Faceless E-Asstt. Centre, Delhi. . . . . . . . Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr Sanket Deshmukh [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 270ASection 371(1)Section 43B

stage of its institution with a direction to deal therewith de-novo on merits and pass a speaking order in terms of section 250(6) of the Act. 7. The appeal in result stands allowed for statistical purposes. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 the order pronounced

Sakinabai Saifuddin Makati, Jamnagar vs. AO, Aaykar Bhawan, Jamnagar

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

ITA 403/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.403/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) Sakinabai Saifuddin Makati बनाम Income Tax Officer, /Vs. C-2/333 Gidc Shanker Tekri, Ward-3(1), Jamnagar, Aaykar Udyog Nagar, Udyog Nagar S.O. Bhawan, Jamnagar-361 005 Jamnagar-361004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aatpv770N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Buddh, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 10Section 144Section 250

decided the issue in respect of the grounds raised by the assessee, in Memo of Appeal, as per the mandate of provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee, requested the Bench to set- aside the order of CIT(A) and requested the Bench

Mahendrakumar Bhanjibhai Chhaniyara, Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward 1 (2) (1) Rajkot, Rajkot

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

ITA 280/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 280/Rjt/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: (2016-17) Mahendrakumar Bhanjibhai Income Tax Officer, Chaniyara, Gaushala Plot, Kolki बनाम Ward-1(2)(1), Rajkot, Aaykar Rajkot, Kolki So, Bhawan, Rajkot-360001 /Vs. Rajkot-360470 स्थायी लेखा सं./जी आइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Astpc9150G (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारितीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri Jaimin Shah, Ld. A.R. राजस्वकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. D.R. सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing : 18/08/2025 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19/08/2025 आदेश / Order Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Order (Ay) 2016-17, Is Directed Against The Order Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) (In Short "Ld.Cit(A)",Dated 12.03.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Act, Dated 28.02.2024. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri Jaimin Shah, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 210Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271F

decided the issue in respect of the ground raised by the assessee in Memo of Appeal as per the mandate of provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. The Ld. AR of the assessee requested to set aside the order of CIT(A) and requested the Bench that matter

Vithalbhai Harjibhai Patel, Surat vs. ITO, Ward3(2)(4), Surat

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

ITA 138/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.138/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Vithalbhai Harjibhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, 101-102, Harihari Society, Katargam Ward – 3(2)(4), Surat - 395004 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abcpp0940K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Kamlesh Bhatt, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/08/2025

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)

After considering the contentions of both parties, we find that the CIT(A) has not passed an order as per the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act and dismissed the appeal of assessee only on the ground of non-compliance. The ex parte order passed ... clearly violative of the express provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. The underlying rationale of the provision is that such orders are subject to further appeal to the appellate Tribunal. Speaking order would obviously enable a party to know precise points decided in his favour or against

Kamaludheen Fathima, Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & Tps, Guruvayoor

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 534/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Hiran C., CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neethu S., Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JM ITA

Kamaludheen Fathima, Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & Tps, Guruvayoor

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 525/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Hiran C., CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neethu S., Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JM ITA

Bharatkumar Rajashree, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 1279/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17 Smt. Bharatkumar Rajashree, Income Tax Officer, C/O. M/S. Travenza Holidays, No. Ward-7(2)(1), 180/A, 16Th Main 4Th ‘T’ Block, Bengaluru. Jayanagar, Vs. Bengaluru-560041. Pan No : Auopr4145D Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Madhusudhan, Advocate Respondent By : Sri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate-Standing Counsel For Revenue Date Of Hearing : 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote: This Appeal Filed By Smt. Bharatkumar Rajashree Against The Order Of The Learned Cit(Appeals) (Nfac) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) For Asst Year 2016-17 On 05/03/2025 Emanating From Assessment Order Dated 22/12/2018 Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Act. 2. The Assessee Has Raised 11 Grounds Of Appeal Which Are Argumentative In Nature & Mainly They Revolve Around The Decision Of The Ld. Cit(A)’S In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 33,45,000/- (Being 1/3Rd Of The Entire Amount For Being Joint Holder

For Appellant: Sri Madhusudhan, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

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

Reji John T Mani, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-68(4), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4620/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 4620/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Reji John T Mani, Vs Income Tax Officer, F-25/41, Pocket-F, Sector-3, Rohini Ward-68(4), Delhi-110085 Delhi-110085 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aizpm5428P Assessee By: Sh. Suraj Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.08.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1070784496(1) Dated 30.11.2024, In Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Suraj Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 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

Anil Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 36(1), Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4295/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 4295/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Anil Aggarwal, Vs Income Tax Officer, 115, Dharam Kunj Apartments, Ward-36(1), Sector-9, Delhi-110085 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aicpa2292C Assessee By: Sh. Pranshu Singhal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.08.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1075874472(1) Dated 29.04.2025, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Pranshu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

Sanjeev Agrawal, C/O Akul Agarwal and Associates vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Income Tax Office

ITA 2945/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Sh. Akul Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

Sanjeev Agrawal, C/O Akul Agarwal and Associates vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Income Tax Office

ITA 2930/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Sh. Akul Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

Rajneesh Sharma, Ghaziabad vs. The ITO Ward-2(2)(2), Ghaziabad

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2582/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 2582/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Sh. Rajneesh Sharma, Vs Income Tax Officer, 106, Makaramatpur Sikrod Meerut Ward-2(2)(2), Road, Ghaziabad-201003 Ghaziabad-201002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ddops3508B Assessee By: None Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.08.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2011-12, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1073557101(1) Dated 21.02.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Adjournment Rejected.

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

Section 147Section 250(6)

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

Shabbir Saifuddin Makati, Jamnagar vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1), Jamnagar

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

ITA 419/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.419/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) Shabbir Safuddini Makati बनाम Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(6), Jamnagar, Aaykar /Vs. C-2/333, Gidc, Shankar Bhwan, Jamnagar-361 004 Tekari, Udyog Nagar, Jamnagar-361004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acdpm8899E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Buddh, Ld.A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr. D.R

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(3)

Matel Hardware, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO WD 3(1)(1), Rajkot

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

ITA 204/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 204/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2016-17) Matel Hardware Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shrddha Park Street No.2, Shrddha 3(1)(1), Rajkot, Aaykar बनाम Park Main Road, Ram Chowk, Bhawan, Rajkot-360001 /Vs. Rajkot-360002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aazfm6158L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Dholariya, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 253(3)

Umesh Ramjibhai Pavasiya, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 3(3)(5), Surat

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

ITA 925/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.925/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Umesh Ramjibhai Pavasiya, Vs. Ito, 102, Vallabh Nagar Society, Ward -3(3)(5), Varachha Road, Opp – Baroda Surat Prestige, Surat - 395006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Afjpp2768Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18/08/2025

Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 68

lower authorities, ITA No.925/SRT/2024/AY.2013-14 Umesh Ramjibhai Pavasiya we find that the CIT(A) has not passed an order as per the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act and dismissed the appeal of assessee only on the ground of non-compliance. The order passed ... clearly in violation of the express provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, which provides that the appellate orders of the CIT(A) are to state the points arising in the appeal, the decision of the authority thereon and the reasons for such decisions. The underlying rationale

Yasmeen Shaikh, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(5), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1264/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessmentyear:2015-16 Mrs. Yasmeen Shaikh, Income Tax Officer, 3093, Sobha Carnation, Ward-5(3)(5), Bellandur Outer Ring Road, Bengaluru. Bellandur, Vs. Bengaluru-560103. Pan No : Aovps3088K Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Sunain Bhatia, Advocate Respondent By : Sri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate-Standing Counsel For Revenue Date Of Hearing : 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote: This Is An Appeal Filed By Mrs. Yasmeen Shaikh Against The Order Of The Learned Cit(Appeals) (Nfac) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) For Asst Year 2015-16 On 18/03/2025 Emanating From Assessment Order Dated 25/01/2023 Passed U/S. 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Act. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below, Insofar As They Are Against The Appellant, Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Ld.Cit(A)/Nfac Erred In Disposing Off The Appeal Holding That The Appellant Has Not Complied

For Appellant: Ms. Sunain Bhatia, Advocate

Section 147Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 69

The Borivali Ashwini Co Op Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 42(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 4170/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80P(2)(d)

refusing the condonation of delay and has not formulated any points of determination for passing the reasoned order as is required by section 250(6) of the Act. 8. For the above reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the refusal of condonation of delay