← 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)

DCIT, Circle- 25(1), New Delhi vs. Wrigley India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1294/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 250(6)Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

Transfer Pricing Officer ('Ld. TPO')/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ('Ld. CIT (A)') under section 92CA (3)/143(3)/ section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') is bad in law. 3 ITA Nos.667 & 702, 952 & 953/Del/2022 ITA No. 1293 to 1295/Del/2022 2. That

DCIT, Circle-25(1), New Delhi vs. Wrigley India P.Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 1293/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 250(6)Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

Transfer Pricing Officer ('Ld. TPO')/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ('Ld. CIT (A)') under section 92CA (3)/143(3)/ section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') is bad in law. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

JCIT, Circle-27(2), New Delhi vs. Wrigley India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 702/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 250(6)Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

Transfer Pricing Officer ('Ld. TPO')/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ('Ld. CIT (A)') under section 92CA (3)/143(3)/ section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') is bad in law. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

Wrigley India Pvt. Ltd., 206, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-3, New Delhi-110020 vs. DCIT, Circle 27(2), New Delhi

ITA 667/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 250(6)Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

Transfer Pricing Officer ('Ld. TPO')/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ('Ld. CIT (A)') under section 92CA (3)/143(3)/ section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') is bad in law. 3 ITA Nos.667 & 702, 952 & 953/Del/2022 ITA No.1293 to1295/Del/2022 2. That on the facts

Mr. Narendra Kuma Rbal, Keonjhar vs. Income Tax Officer, Keonjhar Ward, Keonjhar

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

ITA 178/CTK/2025[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack28 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250

Ground No. 2 relating to overall addition has not been adjudicated. In this respect, it is relevant to examine the provisions of section 250(6) which are reproduced as under: I.T.A. No.: 178/CTK/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mr. Narendra Kumar Bal. “250(6) – The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing ... appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision.” 6. Thus, section 250(6) of the Act casts a duty on the Ld. CIT(A) to pass an order in appeal which should state the points for determination

Krishna Satyabodha Kulkarni, Dharwad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Hubballi

In the result, both the appeals (ITA Nos

ITA 2112/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh V Mudhol, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 147Section 250(6)

findings on merits. The dismissal was solely on account of non-appearance by the assessee. 5.1 It is pertinent to mention here that section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, mandates that the CIT(A) must pass a speaking and reasoned order after affording the assessee an opportunity

Krishna Satyabodha Kulkarni, Dharwad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Hubballi

In the result, both the appeals (ITA Nos

ITA 2111/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh V Mudhol, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 147Section 250(6)

findings on merits. The dismissal was solely on account of non-appearance by the assessee. 5.1 It is pertinent to mention here that section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, mandates that the CIT(A) must pass a speaking and reasoned order after affording the assessee an opportunity

Mukesh Dua, Faridabad vs. Income Tax Inspector, Faridabad

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1029/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2012-13 Vs. Income Tax Inspector, Sh. Mukesh Dua, 5K/78, Block K No. 5, Kc Faridabad Road Chok, Faridabad Pan :Ayqpd2242M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

Section 147Section 250(6)

noticed from a perusal of the learned CIT(A)/NFAC’s detailed discussion in paragraph 6 onwards that there is no compliance to section 250(6) of the Act requiring him to frame points of determination followed by a detailed adjudication thereof by a reasoned speaking order. That being

Tejinder Singh, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward 2(4), Faridabad

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 1852/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandrashri Tejinder Singh Vs. The I.T.O 596, Sector -15 Ward - 2(4) Faridabad, Haryana Faridabad

For Appellant: Shri Gian Bhardwaj, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘F’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Delhi Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 5326/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

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

ITA No.5326 & 5282/Del/2016 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “B” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL

Delhi Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 5282/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

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

ITA No.5326 & 5282/Del/2016 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “B” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL

Rajendra Narottamdas Sheth, Surat vs. Idcit Central Circle-2(1)(1), Surat

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 84/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.84/Srt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 Rajendra Narottamdas Sheth Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ A-202, Parshwa Darshan Co- Income Tax V/S. Op. Housing Society Central Circle-2(1)(1) Opp.Navyug College Surat – 395 001 Surat – 395 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Afxps 2264 Q (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Ca Revenue By : Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/05/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 07/05/2024 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case As Well As The Law On The Subject, The Learned Commissioner Of The Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Rajendra Narottamdas Sheth Vs. Dcit Asst. Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT(DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 68

conclusions. This exercise of power at the end of the Ld.CIT(A) is not in coherence with the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act. 4. In view of the above observations, in our view, the interests of justice will be well served, if the assessee is given

State Bank of India (Earlier Known As Sbbj), Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer(TDS), Ajmer

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

ITA 173/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 May 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Mrs. Apeksha Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 142Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250(6)Section 253(5)Section 292BSection 5

SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A), Ajmer dated 11.06.2019 passed under section 250(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- "1. Under the facts

Transworld Educare Private Limited, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer, Circle-7, Pune

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

ITA 838/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.838/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.Y. Chavan
Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)

Ld.CIT(A) has also not dealt with merits of the case and passed a non-speaking order without adhering to the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. 3. Considering all these factual aspects, the intention of the assessee to opt for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme

Shri Sangram Ajit Kirloskar, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Pune

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

ITA 782/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.782/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri B.C. MalakarFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

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

Shivdas Venkat Gomare HUF, Latur vs. ITO Ward 1, Latur

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

ITA 760/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.760/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta
Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 250Section 253

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

Solufeed Plant Product and Services Private Limited, Nashik vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre ( NFAC, Nashik

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

ITA 283/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.283/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)

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

Dilipchand Sobhagchand Chopda, Latur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Latur

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

ITA 255/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Vice- & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Shubham N. Rathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 250Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE-PRESIDENT AND Ms. ASTHA

Jagdish, Faridabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Faridabad

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2120/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 2120/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Jagdish, Vs Income Tax Officer, H. No. 110, Near Anganwadi, Mujeri, Ward-1(3), Neemka, Faridabad-121004 Faridabad-121001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Anrpj7047A Assessee By: None Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.05.2025 Order

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

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

Mamta, Rohtak vs. ITO, Ward - 3, Rohtak

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2047/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 2047/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Mamta, Vs Income Tax Officer, H. No. 1487/20, Bhagwan Colony, Ward-3, Rohtak, Haryana-124001 Rohtak, Haryana-124001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Amopm8507C Assessee By: Sh. Navin Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.05.2025 Order

For Appellant: Sh. Navin Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 250(6)

virtual hearing mechanism could not be altogether ruled out. This is indeed coupled with the facts that there is also no 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