← 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)

Vinod Kumar, Sultan Prui vs. ITO Ward-34(5), Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5558/DEL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Naveen Chandraita No. 5558/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Vinod Kumar, Vs Income Tax Officer, A-2/342, Sultan Puri, Ward-34(5), Delhi-110086 Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahkpv3293R Assessee By : Sh. V. Rajkumar, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Monika Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.02.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1078291639(1) Dated 08.07.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. V. Rajkumar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-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

Nusrat Banka, New Delhi vs. AO, Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5557/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Naveen Chandraita No. 5557/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2014-15 Nusrat Banka, Vs Income Tax Officer, D-815, 3Rd Floor, Ratan Mani, New Ward-61(1), Friends Colony, New Delhi-110001 Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Alypb4979L Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.02.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1076190365(1) Dated 14.05.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. Naveen

Bhisti Exports, Veraval vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4, Veraval

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

ITA 884/RJT/2025[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot04 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri R. D. Lalchandani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

also note that Ld. CIT(A) has not passed the order as per the mandate of provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. We also note that assessee did not submit entire documents and evidences before the assessing officer. Hence, we are of the view that one more opportunity

Bhisti Exports, Veraval vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4, Veraval

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

ITA 883/RJT/2025[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot04 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri R. D. Lalchandani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

also note that Ld. CIT(A) has not passed the order as per the mandate of provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. We also note that assessee did not submit entire documents and evidences before the assessing officer. Hence, we are of the view that one more opportunity

Rajrshi Shahu Chhatrapati Bahuudeshiy Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Aurangabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2, Aurangabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee in IT(SS)A No

ITA 2935/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

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

Section 250

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

Rajrshi Shahu Chhatrapati Bahuudeshiy Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Aurangabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2, Aurangabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee in IT(SS)A No

ITA 2930/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

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

Section 250

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

Devtech M2M Limited, Pune vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 1231/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21 Devtech M2M Limited Dcit, Central Circle 1(1), 4Th Floor, Sava House, Pune Vs. Opp New Airport Road, Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aadcb4376Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Smt Sonal L Sonkavde, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 68

also an admitted fact that the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC has not decided the appeal on merit as per provisions of section 250(6) of the Act which reads as under: “250….. …..…… (6) The order of the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall

Dinesh Kumar, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Central Circle-3(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 613/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2026AY 2021-22
For Appellant: None
Section 144Section 153CSection 250(6)Section 69A

solely on the ground of non-prosecution, without adjudicating the grounds raised by the assessee on merits. However, as per the mandate of section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), the Ld. CIT(A) is duty-bound to dispose of the appeal by passing a speaking ... prosecution. In the present case, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is clearly in violation of the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act. 7. The Ld. DR fairly conceded that the impugned order is non-speaking and did not raise any objection to the matter being

Bikesh Kumar, Firozabad vs. Income Tax Officer 2(2)(1), Firozabad

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

ITA 490/AGR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshbikesh Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Nagla Bhoop Nasirpur, Ward-2(2)(1), Shikhabad Firozabad, Firozabad Firozabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Bglpk0327A Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Sharma, Adv Shri Manuj Sharma, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2026

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69Section 69A

grounds before me:- “1. That the order passed U/s 250 by NFAC dt. 26.08.2025 is not in 1 accordance with the provisions of section 250(6) of Income tax Act, order passed is liable to be set aside. 2. That while passing the order u/s 250, the NFAC has completely

S. V. Enterprises, Nagpur vs. DCIT/ACIT Circle-1, Nagpur

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

ITA 580/NAG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Darshana Bhaiya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH : NAGPUR (Through virtual) BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.No.580/NAG/2025

Ramrati Sahu, Bhopal vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 34/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 250Section 253(5)Section 263

merits of the case on the grounds contained in the memorandum of appeal, which is not in accordance with the statutory requirements of section 250(6) of the Act. The Honourable mi High it in case of Premkumar Arjund: hra (HUF), [2016] 240 Taxman 133 held that

Sanjeev Yashwant Bartakke, Pune vs. DCIT Cir-5, Pune

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

ITA 3024/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.3024/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sanjeev Yashwant Bartakke, Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Flat No.803, Building C, Pune Treasure Park, Santnagar, Parvati, Parvatigaon, Pune 411009, Maharashtra Pan : Acdpb2796F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P BoraFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.3024/PUN/2025

M/S Motor & General Sales Limited, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer(TDS)-II, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 136/LKW/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow02 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Motor & General Sales V. Income Tax Officer Ltd (Tds)-Ii 11, M. G. Marg, Hazratganj, Commissioner Of Income Lucknow-226001. Tax (Appeals-Ii), Kanpur- 208001. Pan:Lknmo0336A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Ca Respondent By: Shri S. H. Usmani, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing: 06 11 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 02 02 2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. H. Usmani, CIT- DR
Section 133ASection 194ASection 2Section 201(1)Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI, NIKHIL CHOUDHARY

Dhananjay Vasantrao Deshmukh (HUF), Aurangabad vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(5), Aurangabad

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2344/PUN/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Feb 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh N Thete (virtual)For Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL

Bhaskar Rajaram Thorat, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Nashik

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2302/PUN/2025[2015 - 16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Feb 2026

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Chinmayy Pathak (virtual)For Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl.CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL

Bhaskar Rajaram Thorat, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Nashik

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2300/PUN/2025[2015 - 16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Feb 2026

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Chinmayy Pathak (virtual)For Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl.CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL

Raghav Aditya Chits P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-13, New Delh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3254/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Hon’Ble & Shri Naveen Chandra, Hon’Ble

Section 142(1)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(b)

3254_DEL_2018_Raghav Aditya Chits Pvt Ltd IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE

Pradeep Jain, Ujjain vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Ujjain

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

ITA 543/IND/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshipradeep Jain, Ito –Ward-1(1), बनाम/ 7/C, Suraj Nagar, Ujjain. Ujjain. Vs. (Pan: Aglpj6336K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Harshit Chowkse, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 14.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253

directed to pass a speaking & well-reasoned order basis merits as contemplated in law by virtue of section 250(6) of the Act. Page 7 of 8 Pradeep Jain ITA No. 543/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2011-12 4.4 In the premises drawn up by us we set aside the “impugned order” & remand the case

Hari Singh, Raisen vs. ITO Raisen, Raisen

In the result “Impugned order” is set aside as and by way

ITA 536/IND/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshihari Singh, Ito, Raisen बनाम/ S/O Sh. Dhara Singh, 86,Vill- Vs. Semri Khurd, Tehsil- Sultanpur, Raisen,Bhopal, Mp (Pan: Aiaps1986M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 148Section 148(2)Section 246ASection 250Section 253

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, इंदौर"ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

Bhimrav Mahtarji Sonwane, Tad Pimpalgaon vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Aurangabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3096/PUN/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.3096/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Bhimrav Mahtarji Sonwane, V Income Tax Officer, At Post Tad Pimpalgaon Ta S Ward-1(5), Aurangabad. Kannad Dist Aurangabad, Aurangabad – 431115. Pan:Cnzps9338D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Mukesh Chudiwal Revenue By Shri Ajitesh Kumar Meena – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 28/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30/01/2026 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.2022-23Dated 17.10.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144B Of The Act, Dated 28.02.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A). Nfac Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Ex-Parte Without Considering The Written Submissions, Documents, Books Of

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

account, and evidences already submitted before the Investigation Wing and the Assessing Officer, in complete violation of the principles of natural justice and Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the entire addition of ₹11.46,800 made