“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)

Ravi Prasad Boyapati, Krishna District vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Vijayawada

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 54/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, CA

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

principles of natural justice. 3. The disposal of the appeal ex-parte by the Ld. CIT(A) is against the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act which obligates the CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal on merits. 4. The Ld. Assessing officer NFAC who completed

Pasala Jojamma, Warangal vs. ITO., Ward-1, Warangal

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 172/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us :

For Appellant: Ms. S. SandhyaFor Respondent: Shri D. Praveen, Sr.AR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद ‘ ‘ए’ बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad श्री रवीश

Kishore Kumar Raju Muppala, Chittoor vs. ITO., Ward-1, Chittoor

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for

ITA 107/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr. AR

Section 143(2)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA

M/S Shakti Spinners Ltd., Ludhiana vs. ACIT, Circle-7, Ludhiana

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 599/CHANDI/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “बी” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING

The Sankhli Urban Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Sankhli vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(4), Panaji

ITA 58/PAN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji09 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 058/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr Amol Arlekar [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Narendra Reddy [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 40Section 80P

stage of its institution with a direction to deal therewith de-novo on merits and pass a speaking order in terms of section 250(6) of the Act. 7. The appeal in result stands allowed for statistical purposes. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 the order pronounced

Pinnac Parijaat Co.Op. Hsg. Society Ltd, Pune vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Pune

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

ITA 531/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.531/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Pinnac Parijaat Co. Op. V The Income Tax Officer, Housing Society Limited, S Ward-2(2), Pune. S.No.35, Hissa No.1,3,4,5,11,12, Karve Nagar, Pune – 411052. Pan: Aadap9430D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Harish Bist – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 03/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)/[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, On 24.12.2024 For Assessment Year 2020-21. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Total Income Of The Appellant At Rs. 3,13,990/-Instead Of 1,01,830/-

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

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

Rajesh Gandhi, New Delhi vs. Sanghpriya Singh, DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 4701/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2021-22 Ramesh Gandhi, Vs Dcit, 67-68, Sector-25, New Delhi. Pocket-2, Rohini, New Delhi – 110 085. Pan: Aetpg9908E Assessment Year: 2021-22 Rajesh Gandhi, Dcit, 67-68, Sector-25, New Delhi. Pocket-2, Rohini, New Delhi – 110 085. Pan: Azfpg7938P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vinod Bindal, Ca Shri Anmol Jha, Advocate & Ms Rinky Sharma, Itp Revenue By : Ms Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2025 Order Per Annapurna Gupta, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153Section 153CSection 250(6)Section 272ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 273B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: F : NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS MADHUMITA

Ramesh Gandhi, New Delhi vs. Sanghpriya Singh, DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 4696/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153Section 153CSection 250(6)Section 272ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 273B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: F : NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS MADHUMITA

Hemant Kumar, Gurgoan vs. ITO Ward-2(1), Gurgaon

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3419/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 3419/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Hemant Kumar, Vs Income Tax Officer, B-701, Vills Apartment, Dlf City, Ward-2(1), Phase-Ii, Gurgaon-122001 Gurgaon-122001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aakpk9873D Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.04.2025 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/250/2023-24/1056467679(1) Dated 24.09.2023, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

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

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Amit Kumar Kothari, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for the AY 2019-

ITA 2664/CHNY/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2662, 2663 & 2664/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Amit Kumar Kothari, Income Tax, New No. 35 To 41, Old No. 28, Central Circle 2(1), Evk Sampath Salai, Vepery, Chennai. Chennai 600 007. [Pan:Adypa1209N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders All Dated 21.08.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -19, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23. 2. Since Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear

For Appellant: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 69

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एस.एस. िव"ने

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Amit Kumar Kothari, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for the AY 2019-

ITA 2663/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 69

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एस.एस. िव"ने

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Amit Kumar Kothari, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for the AY 2019-

ITA 2662/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 69

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एस.एस. िव"ने

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

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 108/AGR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra08 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: : Smt Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 144Section 148Section 250(6)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SMT ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH

Priya Prasad Shirodkar, Calangute vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Panaji

ITA 53/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji08 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 053/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Priya Prasad Shirodkar H.No. 4/96, Prabhuwaddo, Calangute, Goa Pan : Akipg9924D . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : None For The Assessee Revenue By : Mr Narendra Reddy [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 07/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 08/04/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee Impugns Din & Order 1065516948(1) Dt. 10/06/2024 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac’ Hereinafter] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 26/09/2022 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By The National Faceless E-Asstt. Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfeac’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2020-21 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr Narendra Reddy [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 253(3)

stage of its institution with a direction to deal therewith de-novo on merits and pass a speaking order in terms of section 250(6) of the Act. Order Accordingly. 8. The appeal in result stands allowed for statistical purposes. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules

Shahnavas Pariyangadu Muhammed, Palakkad vs. ITO, Ward 2, Palakkad

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

ITA 207/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shahnavas Pariyangadu Muhammed .......... Appellant 1/10, Subi Villa, Pazhabalacode Alathur, Palakkad 678544 [Pan: Biaps8360Q] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Palakkad .......... Respondent Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 26.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.04.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 30.10.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Had Not Filed Regular Return Of Income U/S. 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Ay 2014-15. However, As Per The Information Received Through Multiyear Nms Cases In Aims Module The Ao Found That The Assessee Was Involved In Certain Financial Transactions During Fy 2013-14. Therefore The Ao Issued Notice U/S. 148 Of The Act On 29.03.2021. In Response To The Notice, The Assessee Filed

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shahnavas Pariyangadu

Brightech Valves & Controls Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 52/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.Ta. No.52/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Brightech Valves & Controls Vs. Deputy Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of Plot No.345, Gidc Kathwada. Income Tax, Kathwada, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad-382430. Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Adjournment Application FiledFor Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr.DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 35(1)(ii)

cleared violation of principal of natural justice of affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard and is in clear violation of section 250(6) of the Income tax Act. It is therefore prayed that the said order suitably modified. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), has erred

Shri Vaishnav Parivar Bahuuddeshiy Sevabhavi Sanstha, Jalna vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 2814/PUN/2024[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Apr 2025AY 2024-2025

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2814/Pun/2024 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2024-25 Vs Cit Exemption, Shri Vaishnav Parivar Bahuuddeshiy Sevabhavi Pune Sanstha, Shelud At Shelud, Post Shelud, Bhokardan, Jalna-431132 Maharashtra Pan-Abgas1253B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 250(6)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण "बी" न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH, PUNE BEFORE Dr. MANISH BORAD

Nav Nirman, Allahabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Allahabad

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

ITA 188/ALLD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad07 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250(6)Section 271A(1)(d)Section 272A(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

I.T.A. No.188/Alld/2024 Assessment Year:2018-19 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD BEFORE SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA

Shri Ramniklal Hirji Patel, Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward-2, Bhuj, Bhuj-Kutch

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

ITA 105/RJT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 144Section 148Section 253(5)Section 50C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN

Praksh Pushparaj Golcha, Andheri (W) vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4417/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarpraksh Pushparaj Golcha, V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of 6A, Shivkrupa H Wing, बनाम Income Tax– 24(3), Old Nagardas Road, M/O Finance, Income Tax Andheri(W), Department, National Faceless Mumbai-400 069, Appeal Centre(Nfac), Delhi Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabpg9404H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Mr.Ruturaj H. Gurjar,ARFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani,(Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT