← 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)

Jayeshkumar Tulsidas Sutaria, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward 7(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2388/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Gohil, ARFor Respondent: Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr. DR
Section 10(100)Section 10(108)Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 246ASection 250(6)Section 251

erred in refusing to adjudicate the exemption claim u/s 10(108) on merits, thereby violating section 250(6) mandating a reasoned and speaking order on each ground of appeal. The impugned order is non- speaking, arbitrary, contrary to statutory requirements, and deserves to be quashed

Jayeshkumar Tulsidas Sutaria, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward 7(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2387/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Gohil, ARFor Respondent: Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr. DR
Section 10(100)Section 10(108)Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 246ASection 250(6)Section 251

erred in refusing to adjudicate the exemption claim u/s 10(108) on merits, thereby violating section 250(6) mandating a reasoned and speaking order on each ground of appeal. The impugned order is non- speaking, arbitrary, contrary to statutory requirements, and deserves to be quashed

Sunil Subhash Shelar, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Nashik

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

ITA 3203/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Shahakar, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL

Suchit Dilip Mane, Sangali vs. ITO Ward-1, Sangali

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

ITA 2601/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Shahakar, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL

Prabhat Kumar Chaurasia, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 37(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 3064/KOL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Jalan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Susanta Saha, DR
Section 250(6)

passed an ex-parte order in limine without deciding the issues at merit, which in our opinion is in violation of Provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, this appeal is restored to the file of the learned

Kishor Changya Patil, Mumbai vs. ITO41(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 8032/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Akash Kumar (VirtuallyFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 250(4)

araery atteia aftero =a tie yas FI IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA

Avaneesh Impex Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7644/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankaravaneesh Impex Private Vs. Ito 4(1)(2) Limited Room No. 636 6Th Floor, Office No. B-311, Vallabh Aayakar Bhavan. Bhuvan, 3Rd Floor, Babubhai Mumbai - 400020 Vashi Road, Near Laxmi Narayan Mandir, Mumbai - 400056

Section 119Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)

opportunity of hearing and without deciding the issues on merits, in complete violation of the principles of natural justice and the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act requiring a speaking and reasoned order. 3 Avaneesh Impex Private Limited V. On the facts and in the circumstances

Tarasing & Sons, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 33(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6796/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2026AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Revenue -For Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 250(4)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण न्याय पीठ मुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA

Tarasing & Sons, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-33(1)(1), Mumbai

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 6795/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Assessee by
Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ाय पीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA

Ravendra Singh, Agra vs. ACIT, Circle 1(2)(1), Agra

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

ITA 499/AGR/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Feb 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Ravendra Singh Vs. Acit, 28, Tota Ka Taal Circle 1(2)(1), Loha Mandi, Uttar Pradesh Agra Pan : Abyps5329K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Shashank Agarwal, Adv. Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.02.2026 Order

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 250(6)Section 68

deliberate. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in summarily dismissing the appeal instead of deciding the same on merits as required under section 250(6) of the Act hence the order is bad in law and llable to be quashed. 4. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that

Shyam Pulses Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. ITO-1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4/RPR/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.03 & 04/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Shyam Pulses Pvt. Ltd. Jawahar Nagar, Near Chhattisgarh Agency, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Aaics7656K

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 249(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PARTHA

Shyam Pulses Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. ITO-1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3/RPR/2026[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.03 & 04/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Shyam Pulses Pvt. Ltd. Jawahar Nagar, Near Chhattisgarh Agency, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Aaics7656K

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 249(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PARTHA

Shree Krishna Udyog, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 841/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 841/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shree Krishna Udyog, 17A, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Bhanpuri Industrial Area, Aaykar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492010 Raipur Chhattisgarh, 492001 Pan: Aapfs5659E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G. S. Agrawal, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 16/02/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

For Appellant: Shri G. S. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 145Section 147aSection 148ASection 148A(1)(a)Section 148A(1)(d)Section 151Section 250

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 5 Shree Krishna Udyog vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur read with sections 250(4), 250

Paresh Prashant Bhide, Pune vs. Ward 12(1), Pune, Dgit(Investigation)

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

ITA 3357/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.3357/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Paresh Prashant Bhide, V Ward-12(1), Pune. Flat No.206, Ij Wing, S Meghmalhar, Dsk Vishwa, Dhayari, Pune – 411041. Pan: Bwjpb6765M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sadananda – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12/12/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16/02/2026 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], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2022-23 Dated 14.10.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(1) Of The I.T.Act, Dated 22.12.2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Incorrect Business Income:

Section 1Section 143Section 143(1)Section 144Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)

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

Shree Gajanan Mahila Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Satara vs. Income Tax Officer 1, Satara

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

ITA 3161/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.3161/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Shree Gajanan Mahila Vs. Income Tax Officer, Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Ward-1, Satara Patsanstha Maryadit, A/P. Vahagaon, Tal. Karad, Satara 415110 Maharashtra Pan : Aahas3528D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Shahakar
Section 147Section 249(4)(b)Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL

Rajesh Balram Singh, Pune vs. ACIT, Pune

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

ITA 2962/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Ritvik VatsyayanFor Respondent: Smt. Shraddha Nichal
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision. Thus, in our view, his order is in violation of the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. 8. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice and without going into

Chaya Satish Lodha, Beed vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(5), Aurangabad

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

ITA 2625/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Eknath Abhang, Addl.CIT
Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.No.2625/PUN/2025 (Assessment Year

Navnath Pitambar Pawar, Solapur vs. ITO Ward 2, Pandharpur

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

ITA 1286/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.3357/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Paresh Prashant Bhide, V Ward-12(1), Pune. Flat No.206, Ij Wing, S Meghmalhar, Dsk Vishwa, Dhayari, Pune – 411041. Pan: Bwjpb6765M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sadananda – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12/12/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16/02/2026 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], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2022-23 Dated 14.10.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(1) Of The I.T.Act, Dated 22.12.2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Incorrect Business Income:

Section 1Section 143Section 143(1)Section 144Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)

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

Adim Jati Seva Sahakari S Anstha Belkund, Belkund, Betul vs. ITO, Betul

ITA 95/IND/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshisa No. 2/Ind/2026 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 95/Ind/2026) &

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250(6)Section 69A

prosecution. Still aggrieved, the assessee has come in next appeal before us. 5. Ld. AR for assessee at first submitted that the section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provides “The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state

Mayank Sahai, Lucknow vs. DCIT/ACIT-3 Luckow-New, Income Tax Department

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

ITA 832/LKW/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Feb 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 147Section 250(6)

dismissed the assessee’s appeal in a summary manner in violation of the provisions u/s 250(6) of the Act. Under provisions of section 250(6) of the I.T. Act, the learned CIT(A) was required to dispose of the appeal stating the points for determination, the decision thereon ... other words, the order of the learned CIT(A) must be a speaking order on merits of the case. The unambiguous provisions of section 250(6) of the I.T. Act require CIT(A) to pass speaking order on merits whether or not there was any attendance or compliance