← 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)

Genuine Electric Company Private Limited, Haridwar vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 1(3)(1), Hardwar, Hardwar Uttarakhand

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 10/DDN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN BENCH, DEHRADUN Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. M. Balaganesh, Accountant

Maharashtra Rajya Pathyapustak Mandal Karmachari Sah Patsanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Pune

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

ITA 398/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.397 & 398/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2019-20 & 2020-21 Maharashtra Rajya Pathyapustak Mandal Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Karmachari Sah Patsanstha Maryadit, Pune Balbharati, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune – 411004 Pan : Aaaam2009A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath
Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 80P

issue raised on merits back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjudication on merits in light of the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act and decide the appeal in accordance with law after providing fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed

Maharashtra Rajya Pathyapustak Mandal Karmachari Sah Patsanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Pune

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

ITA 397/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.397 & 398/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2019-20 & 2020-21 Maharashtra Rajya Pathyapustak Mandal Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Karmachari Sah Patsanstha Maryadit, Pune Balbharati, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune – 411004 Pan : Aaaam2009A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath
Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 80P

issue raised on merits back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjudication on merits in light of the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act and decide the appeal in accordance with law after providing fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed

Pankaj Balasaheb Joshi, Beed vs. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department, Aurangabad

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

ITA 378/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.378/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Pankaj Balasaheb Joshi, Vs. Assessment Unit, 1710 Ganesh Nagar, Gevarai Income Tax Department Post, Beed – 431127 Pan : Anzpj3599D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Jai BhansaliFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath
Section 147Section 250(6)Section 69A

both the parties remit the issue on merits to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjudication as contemplated in section 250(6) of the Act and pass a speaking order after duly providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed

Sujit Kantilal Rathod, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Ichalkaranji

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

ITA 2520/PUN/2024[A.Y. 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2520/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sujit Kantilal Rathod, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, At Post Peth Vadgaon, Ichalkaranni Hatkanangale, Kolhapur416112 Pan : Aaupr5961M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath
Section 250(6)Section 69A

restore the issue raised on merits to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjudication as contemplated in section 250(6) of the Act and to pass speaking order after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant

Farooqia College of Pharmacy, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Mysore

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

ITA 2407/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, CA
Section 144Section 144ASection 148ASection 250(6)Section 69A

liable to be set-aside. (b) The Order of the Hon'ble CIT[A] is not in strict compliance of the Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and therefore impugned CIT [A] Order which is not in terms with the 'Act' is liable to be set aside

Vijay Pal Solanki, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 44(5), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7596/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Smt. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2013-14 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sh. Vijay Pal Solanki, Wz-49C, Near Water Tank, Ward-44(5), Palam Village, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Amlps7488R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 37Section 69

assessee’s various substantive grounds raised in his lower appeal are concerned, which indeed goes against the legislative mandate under section 250(6) of the Act, requiring 2 | P a g e the CIT(A) to first frame points of determination then followed by a detailed adjudication thereof

Shri Gurcharan Singh Rai, Nawanshahar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Nawanshahar

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 471/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Written submissions
Section 250(6)Section 92(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (HYBRID COURT) BEFORE SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. KRINWANT

Shri Gurcharan Singh Rai, Nawanshahar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Nawanshahr

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 470/ASR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Written submissions
Section 250(6)Section 92(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (HYBRID COURT) BEFORE SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. KRINWANT

Shri Gurcharan Singh Rai, Nawanshahar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Nawanshahr

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 469/ASR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Written submissions
Section 250(6)Section 92(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (HYBRID COURT) BEFORE SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. KRINWANT

Shri Gurchaharn Singh Rai, Nawanshahr vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Nawanshahr

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 468/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Written submissions
Section 250(6)Section 92(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (HYBRID COURT) BEFORE SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. KRINWANT

Shri Gurcharan Singh Rai, Nawanshahar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Nawanshahar

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 467/ASR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Written submissions
Section 250(6)Section 92(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (HYBRID COURT) BEFORE SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. KRINWANT

Amit Sharma, Basti Nau, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar

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

ITA 203/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep Vijh, C. A
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69BSection 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (HYBRID COURT) BEFORE SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. KRINWANT

Pankaj Mani Kulshreshtha, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-3(5), Jaipur

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

ITA 19/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: The Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. 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-prosecution, as 2 Sh. Panka Mani Khulshrestha vs. ITO 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

Bramvishma Data & Mailing Services Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward- 1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 240/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.240/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Bramvishma Data & Mailing The Ito बनाम/ Services Pvt.Ltd. Ward-1(1)(2) V/S. C/O. Divyang Shah & Co.,Cas Ahmedabad – 380 015 201, 2Nd Floor, Devashish Complex Nr. Regenta Central Antarim Hotel, Off. C.G. Road Ahmedabad – 380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaccb 6364 M अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Maulik Kansara, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25 /03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26 /03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Maulik Kansara, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 68

dated 24.11.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”], under section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] for the Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12 arising from the order

Siel Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 457/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Sh. Shubham Goyal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 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

Manjulaben Narashibhai Zalariya, Morbi vs. ITO, Ward-3, Morbi

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

ITA 716/RJT/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.716/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Hybrid Hearing) Smt. Manjulaben Narashibhai Zalariya Vs. The Ito, Ward – 3, Rajkot Gokul Nagar, Ravapar Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Shakti Morbi – 363641 Chambers, Gujarat Morbi - 363641 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Aanpz2967Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav. Ld. Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

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

Yogeshkumar Manaharlal Hajariwala, Bharuch vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Bharuch

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

ITA 1271/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1271/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Processing Hearing) Yogeshkumar Manaharlal Income Tax Officer, Ward- बनाम/ Hajariwala 3(2)(1), Surat, Room # 416, Vs. A/6, Ambiika Niketan, B/H Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Jalaram Mandir, Diva Road, Surat-395 001 Ankleshwar, Bharuch-395 004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ajmpt 4689 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, Ar राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 05/03/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 25/03/2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69ASection 80C

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 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

Suresh Hirachand Katrela, Osmanabad vs. ITO Ward 1, Latur

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

ITA 129/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.129/Pun/2025 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Suresh Hirachand Katrela, Vs Ito, Ward-1, Mandia Peth, Main Road Latur Paranda, Osmanabad- 413502 Maharashtra Pan-Akvpk8518N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

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

Harsha Mukesh Vora, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 42(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, with this direction appeal of the assessee is allowed for statical purpose

ITA 623/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalharsha Mukesh Vora Income Tax Officer 42(1)(2) 22, Vora Palace, M.G. Road, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Near Dena Bank, Kandivali West, Complex (Bkc), Mumbai 400067 Mumbai 400051 Pan No. Aaopv0839L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee Represented By Shri Priyank Ghia A/W. Simoni Shah Department Represented By Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 20/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25/03/2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act. Per: Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/ Ld. Cit(A) Dated 22.03.2023 For Assessment Year 2012-13 For Assessment Year (Ay 2012-13). 2. Rival Submissions Of Both The Parties Have Been Heard & Record Perused. The Learned Authorised Representative (Ld Ar) Of The Assessee Submit That While Filing Appeal Before Cit(A), The Assessee Has Given Email Address “Voramaulik @Yahoo.Com”. However, No Notice Was Sent Through Such Email. Notice Under Section 250 Of The Act Was Sent By Ld. Cit(A) At Different Email I.E. Prajapati.Ca@Gamil.Com. Copy Of Screen Shot Of Itba Portal Is Placed On Record. The Said Email Belongs To Her Earlier Chartered Accountant (Ca), Who Has Not Informed The Assessee Or Her Present Ca Thus, The Assessee Could Not Make Compliance In Time & Ultimately Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed

Section 250Section 250(6)Section 254(1)

Considering the fact that Ld. CIT(A) has not discuss the merits of the case and it is not inconsonance with provision of Section 250(6) the Act, therefore, order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored back to the file