Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.359

Section 250(6) falls under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 359 (Procedure in appeal) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 359 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 250(6) is CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. (38 ITD 320), cited in 2,267 of the 6,270 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

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.

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.

Commissioner of Income Tax Madras v. Chenniyappa Mudiliar
1 SCC 591 · 1985 · Reported
225
citing judgments

The appellate tribunal must render a proper decision on both facts and law, disposing of an appeal on its merits rather than dismissing it solely due to the appellant's absence. This obligation is derived from Section 33(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, and reflects principles of natural justice.

Vijay Shrinivasrao Kulkarni v. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal
171 Taxmann.com 696 · 2025 · High Court
200
citing judgments

The ITAT fails to uphold natural justice when it doesn't address an infirmity regarding an assessee being denied a proper opportunity of being heard before the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC dismissed the matter ex-parte.

Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Nagpur v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)
69 Taxmann.com 407 · 2016 · High Court
159
citing judgments

The Commissioner (Appeals) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution; the law does not empower them to do so. The appeal must be decided on merits and in writing, stating points for determination, decision, and reasons.

Judgments on Section 250(6)

Jaspali Chauhan, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 70(1), Delhi

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

ITA 8206/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jul 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarmrs. Jaspali Chauhan The Dcit F-13, Mansarovar Garden Income Tax Department New Delhi-110015 V. Circle 70(1) Civic Centre Pan-Abtpc1075B New Delhi-110002. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Mansi Jain,Advocate Department By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 14.07.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 15.07.2026 Order Per Ramit Kochar, Am: This Appeal In Ita No. 8206/Del/2025 For Assessment Year: 2020-21 Has Arisen From The Learned Cit(A)’S Appellate Order U/S 250 Dated 19.11.2025 In Din & Order No: Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1082772602(1), Which In Turn Has Arisen From The Penalty Order Dated 24.07.2025 Passed By The Ao U/S 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”), For Assessment Year 2020-21 In Din Itba/Pnl/F/270A/ 2025-26/1078876632(1). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Penalty U/S 270A Of The 1961 Act Was Imposed By The Ao Against The Assessee To The Tune Of Rs. 3,24,512/-. The Assessee Filed First Appeal With Ld. Cit(A) , Who Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Ex-Parte & Upheld The Penalty Imposed By The Ao. The Ld. Cit(A) Issued As Many As 4 Notices To The Assessee, But There Was No Compliance By The Assessee To Aforesaid Notices. 3. Still Aggrieved , The Assessee Has Filed Second Appeal With The Tribunal. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Passed An Ex-

Section 250Section 250(6)Section 253Section 260ASection 270A