← 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)

Ketan Bhikhubhai Patel, Valsad vs. ITO, Ward 5, Vapi

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

ITA 1370/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1370/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Ketan Bhikhubhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, Vav Faliya, At Dungri Via Udwada (R.S) Ward - 5, Tal Udwada, Dungri (Udava Rs) B.O, Vapi Dungri, Valsad, 396185 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aphpp0922Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Suresh K Kabra, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07/05/2025

Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

perusing the order of lower authorities, 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 by the CIT(A) is clearly ... violative 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 of the provision

Amit Kiritbhai Mehta, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 603/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Amit Kiritbhai Mehta The Ito, Ward-2(1)(2) 272, Krishna, Manekbaug Society Vejalpur Ambawadi, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad Pan: Agapm 0534 H (Applicant) (Responent) : None Assessee By Revenue By : Smt.Trupti Patel, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/05/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

For Respondent: Smt.Trupti Patel, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

parte assessment, applicability of section 69A and section 115BBE, levy of interest and penalties, and procedural lapses in the appellate order under section 250(6) of the Act. It is also contended that the authorities failed to appreciate the facts and explanations properly and the benefit of telescoping

Saurabh Jayant Bhaga, Raigad Panvel vs. ITO Ward-1, Panvel

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

ITA 2718/PUN/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2717 & 2718/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Saurabh Jayant Bhagat, The Income Tax Officer, A-806, Balaji Aangan, Nr. S T V Panvel. Depot, Panvel Raigad–410206. S. Maharashtra. Pan: Aklpb9996P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Gaurang Khakhkhar – Ar(Virtual) Revenue By Shri Abhinay Kumbhar & Shri Vinod Pawar – Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commssioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, Date 31.05.2024 For The A.Y.2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1) The Honorable Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Upholding The Reassessment Proceedings Without Communicating The Reason For Reopening Of Assessment.

Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

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

Saurabh Jayant Bhagat, Panvel Raigad vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO Panvel

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

ITA 2717/PUN/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2717 & 2718/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Saurabh Jayant Bhagat, The Income Tax Officer, A-806, Balaji Aangan, Nr. S T V Panvel. Depot, Panvel Raigad–410206. S. Maharashtra. Pan: Aklpb9996P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Gaurang Khakhkhar – Ar(Virtual) Revenue By Shri Abhinay Kumbhar & Shri Vinod Pawar – Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commssioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, Date 31.05.2024 For The A.Y.2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1) The Honorable Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Upholding The Reassessment Proceedings Without Communicating The Reason For Reopening Of Assessment.

Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

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

Power Mech Infra Private Limited, Vijayawada vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

ITA 201/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 May 2025AY 2018-19
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद 'बी' बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B‘Bench, Hyderabad श्री मंजूनाथ

Lummus Technology Heat Trasfer Bv, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- Gurgaon, International Taxation, Gurgaon

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3821/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 May 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

assessee at the outset submitted that the ld. First Appellate Authority has not dealt with the matter in terms of the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act and has dismissed the assessee’s appeal, ex parte, without considering the merits on the issue raised before him. He prayed ... parte. However, it appears that the Ld. CIT(A) has not dealt with the matter on merits in terms of provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act by passing a reasoned order on merits on the issue raised before him and hence in our considered opinion the matter requires

Sujata Souhardha Pattina Sahakari Niyamita, Ankola vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Karwar

ITA 67/PAN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji06 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 067/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Sujatha Souhardha Pattina Sahakari Niyamita At.: Balale, Post.:Madangeri, Tal.:Ankola, Dist.: Uttara Kannada. Pan : Aafas2907J . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Karwar . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Varun Bhat [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Smt Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 05/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 06/05/2025 Order

For Appellant: Mr Varun Bhat [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Smt Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 253(3)

adjudicate the issues raised in Form No 35 on merits in accordance with applicable law and pass a speaking order in terms of section 250(6) of the Act. 6. The appeal in result stands allowed for statistical purposes. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 the order

Shri Kaushal Nitinbhai Bhadesiya, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3 (1) (3), Rajkot

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

ITA 934/RJT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.934/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: (2011-12) Kaushal Nitinbhai Bhadeshiya Income Tax Officer, Ward- बनाम 1-Shivalay Apartment, Arjun 3(1)(3), Rajkot, Aaykar Vs. Park, Nana Mava Main Road, Bhavan, Race Course, Ring Rajkot -360 005 Road, Rajkot-360 001 Pan/Gir No.Akspb 8792 Q "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Brijesh Parekh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 69A

considering the contentions of both parties, we find that the Ld. 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 by the Ld.CIT ... clearly violative of the express provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, which provides that the appellate orders of the Ld.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 of the provision

Mukesh Kumar Jindal, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer- 4(1), Lucknow

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

ITA 792/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Lucknow06 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.792/Lkw/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: 2018-19 Mukesh Kumar Jindal V. Ito-4(1) C-71, Nirala Nagar, Lucknow- Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 226020. 57, Ram Tirath Marg, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Adqpj0319N अपीलाथ"/(Appellant) ""यथ"/(Respondent) अपीलाथ" "क और से/Appellant By: Shri Prashant Kr. Verma, Adv ""यथ" "क और से /Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) सुनवाई "क तार"ख / Date Of Hearing: 01 05 2025 घोषणा "क तार"ख/ Date Of 06 05 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Kr. Verma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

being heard that is the against the Principle of Natural Justice, so that I humble requested to you please set-aside the case. Section 250 6 of the Income Tax Act: The order of the [Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the] Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing ... mandated to state point of determination, its decision thereon and clear reasons therefore in terms of section 250(6) of the Act. This exercise by the Ld. CIT(A) is a pre-requisite and invariably necessary for each assessment year in each case irrespective of its repetition. This is because

Vishal Plastomers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Jt.CIT, Range-8, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1782/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT.DR &
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 41(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL

The ITO, Ward-8(4), Ahmedabad vs. Vishal Plastomers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1776/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT.DR &
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 41(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL

Abdul Kadir Ibrahim Antule, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 1, Panvel

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

ITA 735/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.735/Pun/2025 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Vs Ito, Ward, Abdul Kabir Ibrahim Antule, Panvel Ground Floor, 51 Masjit Street, Bhendi Bazar, Near Mandvi Post Office, Mumbai-400003 Maharashtra Pan-Aiqpa3438E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: CA Vidhi SolaniFor Respondent: Mrs. Indira Adakil
Section 147Section 148Section 249(2)Section 250Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण "एस एम सी" न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "SMC" BENCH, PUNE BEFORE Dr

Jayantilal Chimanlal Reshamwala, Surat vs. ITO Ward-1(2)(2), Surat

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

ITA 489/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.489/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Jayantilal Chimanlal Reshamwala, Vs. The Ito, 4/2330, Doriwala, Salabatpura, Surat – Ward – 1(2)(2), 395001 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abepr8935N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/05/2025

Section 115BSection 250Section 271ASection 69A

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, 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 of the provision

Shashi Prabha Singhania, Neemuch vs. Income-Tax Officer Neemuch, Neemuch

ITA 800/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore05 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253Section 44ASection 80CSection 80D

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT

S R Automobiles, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-3(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 1269/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sisodia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT a
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution, whereas in view of Section 250(6) of the Act, the CIT(A) has no power to dismiss an appeal on account of non- 2 S.R. Automobiles, Jaipur prosecution, as held ... erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution, whereas 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 Hon'ble Bombay High Court

Anwar Akbar Khatik, Dhule vs. The ITO, Ward-2, Dhule

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

ITA 2559/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2559/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Meshram
Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)

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

Raj Kumar Daga HUF, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-30(5), Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5118/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Naveen Chandraita No. 5118/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 M/S Raj Kumar Daga Huf, Vs Income Tax Officer, 7, Loha Mandi, Ward-30(5), Ghaziabad-201001 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahhr2840G Assessee By : Sh. Akash Ojha, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.05.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1069565801(1) Dated 09.10.2024, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Akash Ojha, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 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

Pancham Pal, Patna vs. I.T.O, Ward- 6 (4), Patna

ITA 7/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)

that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing ex-parte order which is in violation of provisions of section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. 3. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the assessment order without affording proper and adequate opportunity of hearing

Mr Bhupendra Kantilal Upadhyaya, Pune vs. ITO Ward -2(3), Pune

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

ITA 1219/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1219/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Bhupendra Kantilal Upadhyaya, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(3), Flat No. B 303, Plot No.9/1, Pune Ramnagar Colony, Bavdhan, Pune 411 021, Maharashtra Pan : Aaapu3638C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Meshram
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 68

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

Shri Dinesh Man Singh, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- II, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 587/LKW/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow01 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Dinesh Man Singh Dcit Central Circle-Ii V. Shri Kanchan Khanna, 15/45- Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, B, Civil Lines, Kanpur-208001. Allenganj, Kanpur- 208001. Pan:Acqpm1819H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vikas Garg, Adv Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Vikas Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

filed by the assessee against the impugned appellate order dated 28.06.2018 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, Kanpur under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to “the Act”) for the assessment year 2016-17-. The grounds of appeal