← 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)

B.N. Exports, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 20(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is accordingly partly allowed for statistical purposes in the above terms

ITA 1123/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 May 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanm/S B. N. Exports Vs. Acit Range 20(1), Nightingale Chs, Bldg No. 2, Flat Piramal Chambers, Parel, No. 201, Second Floor, Hindustan Mumbai. Naka, Charkop Rd, Kandivali (W), Mumbai-400 067 Pan: Aaafb1156E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

loss as well as estimation of profit on sale of sample is confirmed. This ground of appeal is therefore dismissed.” 17. As per section 250(6) of the Act, the Commissioner (Appeals) while disposing of the appeal shall state the points of determination, the decision thereon and the reasons

Progressive Shelters Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-20(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 3416/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 115BSection 69A

each ground of appeal after discussing the issue in detail and his reasons for agreeing with the assessment order. As per provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of the appeal in writing after stating the points for determination ... such orders or vary it so as to either to enhance or to reduce the penalty. On cumulative consideration of the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act read with sections 250(4), 250(5), 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) of the Act and Explanation of section

Shri Ratankumar Kishorilal Bansal, Gandhidham vs. ITO-Ward-1, Gandhidham

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 88/RJT/2025[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.88/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2009-10) (Physical Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav , Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 144Section 250(6)

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. Hence, I am of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee, to plead his case before

Swahray Co Op Housing Society Ltd, Rajkot vs. ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), Rajkot

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 86/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.86/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2018-19)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 154

parte order without adjudicating on merit and the order of ld.CIT(A) is not in accordance with mandate of the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act. Thus, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this appeal is restored back to the file

Khimji Haridas Modi Kautumbik Trust, Station Road vs. ITO Exemption WD 2 Rajkot, Rajkot

In the result, ground raised by the assessee in both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 80/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.79&80/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Ms. Janvi Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav , Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 154

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. Counsel furnished some details and documents, which were not filed before Assessing Officer. Hence, I am of the view

Khimji Haridas Modi Kautumbik Trust, Station Road vs. ITO Exemption WD 2 Rajkot, Rajkot

In the result, ground raised by the assessee in both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 79/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.79&80/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Ms. Janvi Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav , Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 154

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. Counsel furnished some details and documents, which were not filed before Assessing Officer. Hence, I am of the view

Nasimben Sadikbhai Kotadia, Bhanvad vs. Income Tax Officer, Dwarka

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

ITA 72/RJT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.72/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2010-11) Nasimben Sadikbhai Kotadia Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Sahmandli Vistar, Post At- Bhanvad, Dwarka-361335 Jamnagar-361 010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bphpk6343B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav , Ld. Sr. (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 11/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Dr. Arjunlal Saini Am; Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-11, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Vide Order Dated 20/01/2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Dated 28/12/2017, U/S 143(3) Rw.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, None Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee Nor Filed Any Application For Adjournment Despite Issuance Of Notice For Hearing, On The Address Given By The Assessee, In Form-36 & Ld.Senior Departmental Representative For The Respondent / Revenue Was Present. In Absence Of Any Application Filed By The Assessee / Appellant, The Appeal Is Disposed Of Ex Parte, After Hearing Ld.Sr-Dr On Merits In Terms Of Rule 24 Of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav , Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

assessee through ITBA portal. I also note that Ld. CIT(A) has not passed the order as per the mandate of provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, as the order was passed by Ld.CIT(A), without hearing the assessee, and without considering details available in the assessment proceedings

Ashish Jayantilal Pandya, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-1(3)(1), Surat

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

ITA 629/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.629/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Ashish Jayantilal Pandya The Ito, Vs. G/25, Shubhlaxmi Complex, Near Ward - 1(3)(1), Agresan Bhavan, City Light Road, Surat Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aavpp8182D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/04/2025

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

Ashish J Pandya the order of CIT(A) was an ex parte order and it was not in accordance with the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. He, therefore, argued that the penalty order is not sustainable. 5. On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative

Roby Roopesh Poonattil, Kozhikode vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Kozhikode

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

ITA 245/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Roby Roopesh Poonattil .......... Appellant Poonathil House, North Beypore, Kozhikode 673015 [Pan: Akhpr5461P] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 1(3), Kozhikode

For Appellant: Shri P. Raghunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 221(1)Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM Assessment Year: 2017-18 Roby Roopesh

Karuna Jain, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 2(1), Jpr, Jaipur

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 190/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Amit Kumar Jain, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT, Ld. DR
Section 10(38)Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 250Section 250(6)

third-party statements and investigation reports without affording a fair hearing, the procedure violated principles of natural justice and relevant provisions under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. This approach is inconsistent with judicial mandates, as seen in Parasmal Bhandari and Reena Kumari, warranting the deletion

Shri Prakash Vilas Rasal, Sangli vs. ITO, Ward 5, Sangli

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

ITA 83/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Smt. Vinita Shah (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk
Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

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

Shri Prakash Vilas Rasal, Sangli vs. ITO, Ward 5, Sangli

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

ITA 81/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Smt. Vinita Shah (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk
Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

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

Shri Prakash Vilas Rasal, Sangli vs. I.T.O Ward-5, Sangli

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

ITA 80/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Smt. Vinita Shah (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk
Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

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

Shri Prakash Vilas Rasal, Sangli vs. ITO, Wrd.5, Sngli, Sangli

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

ITA 78/PUN/2025[2013-14Q]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Smt. Vinita Shah (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk
Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

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

Piaggio & C S.P.A., Italy vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (It), Circle 2, Pune

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

ITA 751/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.751/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2019-20 Piaggio & C.S. P.A., Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 25, Viale Rinaldo Piaggio, Income Tax (It), Circle-2, Pontedera, Pisa, Italy Pune Pan : Aafcp3921K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Siddhesh ChauguleFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade
Section 154Section 250Section 250(6)

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

Harikkisan Shankar Chavan, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 3(3), Pune

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

ITA 39/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Digambar Surwase (Virtual)For Respondent: Smt Shraddha Nichal
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

opportunity was not granted by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. Further, he has not passed a speaking order as per the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. He accordingly submitted that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to substantiate his case before ... NFAC. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC has not adjudicated the issue on merit as prescribed under the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act which reads as under: “250(1). … (6) The order of the [Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the] Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall

Ujjwala Machhindra Bhujjbal, Pune vs. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department, Pune

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

ITA 21/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.21/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Meshram
Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)

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

Sunil Vilas Bhosale, Sangli vs. ITO Ward 1, Sangli

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

ITA 2675/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2675/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sachin P. KumarFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 68

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

ACIT Central Circle, Agra vs. Sanjeev Agarwal, Agra

In the result, Revenue’s both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 48/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 144Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 251

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR

ACIT, Agra vs. Sanjeev Agarwal, Agra

In the result, Revenue’s both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 47/AGR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 144Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 251

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR