Which cases are most cited on Section 250(6)?

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. (38 ITD 320) — 2,267 citing judgments; Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT (223 ITR 480) — 2,040 citing judgments; CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another (118 ITR 461) — 1,656 citing judgments; CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (297 CTR 614) — 659 citing judgments; Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (2 SCC 107) — 451 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 250(6)?

BharatTax indexes 6,270 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act?

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. (38 ITD 320) is the decision most relied on for Section 250(6), cited in 2,267 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.

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)

Ramgiri, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Gurgaon

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

ITA 4394/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 147Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 69

Sh Abhishek Gupta, Agra vs. ITO W2(2)(1), Firozabad

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

ITA 172/AGR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra14 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarshri Abhishek Gupta The Income Tax Officer 405, Anupam Omerean Ward 2(2)(1), Firozabad, Heights, Mughal Road, V. U.P. Kamla Nagar, Agra-282005 Uttar Pradesh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aefpg0755D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Written adj. application rejectedFor Respondent: Sh. Shailendra Srivastava, Sr

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 253(3)

Sarita Agrawal, Gwalior vs. ACIT, Gwalior

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

ITA 170/AGR/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra14 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarmrs. Sarita Agrawal Acit Geeta Colony Aayakar Bhawan Dal Bazar, Gwalior- V. City Centre 474001 Gwalior-474001 Madhya Pradesh Madhya Pradesh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adxpk3445P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 153A

Fiero Fernandes, Mumbai vs. Jurisdiction Ward 42(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 23/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.23/Mum/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Fiero Fernandes Vs. Ito, Ward-42(2)(2), 1202 Lourdes Heritage, Mumbai Opposite Our Lady Of Lourdes Church, Orlem Malad West Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaspf 3097 Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Ms. Chaitee Londhe, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 12/02/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/02/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm : The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 05/11/2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Learned Cit(A)”], For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Ms. Chaitee Londhe, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR

Section 148Section 149Section 151ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)Section 69

Sameer Subhash Hosmani, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 35(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2412/MUM/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawalsameer Subhash Hosmani, Flat No. 1, Shreenath Dham, W.S. Road, Opp. Jana Seva Bank, Dahisar East, Mumbai - 400068 ……………. Appellant Maharashtra Pan: Adiph3121L V/S Ito, Ward 35(3)(1), Mumbai Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, ……………. Respondent Mumbai - 400051 Maharashtra Assessee By : Ms. Rakhi Dholakiya, Ca Revenue By : Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Ms. Rakhi Dholakiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 250(6)Section 56Section 69C

Pravin Sakharam Gulambe, Raigad vs. ITO Ward 5, Panvel

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

ITA 2674/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2674/Pun/2024 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Shri Pravin Sakharam Vs Ito, Ward-5, Gulambe, Panvel Shubham Raje Enterprises House No. 70 A, At Bhagad, Post Vile Tal Mangaon, Dist Raigad 402308, Maharashtra Pan-Aslpg2336A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Chandan KatariyaFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl

Section 144Section 147Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 250(6)

Ravinanda Landmarks Unit 3, Pune vs. ITO Ward-5(1), Pune

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

ITA 2625/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 250Section 250(6)Section 253(5)

Ravinanda Landmarks, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wared-5(1), Pune

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

ITA 2624/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 250Section 250(6)Section 253(5)

Ravinanda Landmarks, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), Pune

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

ITA 2623/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 250Section 250(6)Section 253(5)

Ravinanda Landmarks, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-5(1), Pune

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

ITA 2622/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 250Section 250(6)Section 253(5)

Sangeeta Agarwal, Kolkata vs. Dy. CIT, Central Circle 1(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2340/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2340/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sangeeta Agarwal………....………………………………………..….……….Appellant 55/1B, Strand Road, 2Nd Floor, Posta, Kolkata – 700006. [Pan: Acrpa8642H] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata………....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Piyush Lakhotia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Archana Gupta, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 13, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 13, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 15.04.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.9,10,980/-. In The Case Of The Assessee, Assessment Was Completed U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 & 144B Of The Act. The Assessing Officer Made Addition Of Rs.33,84,750/- Which Was Alleged To Be Long-Term Capital Gains Which Was Claimed As Exemption By The Assessee In Her Return Of Income. 3. Dissatisfied With The Above Order, The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Against The Assessment Order. However, The Ld.

Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)

Cherrie Gems Private Limited, Roorkee vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 98/DDN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: BEFORESHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250(6)Section 69A

Madan Mohan Gahtori, Udham Singh Nagar vs. ACIT, U.S.Nagar

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

ITA 56/DDN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 131Section 144ASection 153ASection 244ASection 251(1)(a)Section 69ASection 69C

Yogendra Kumar Gupta, Gwalior vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1) Gwl, Gwalior

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

ITA 176/AGR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 48Section 50

Sh Prakash Narayan Agrawal, Gwalior vs. ACIT Circle -2, Gwalior

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 37/AGR/2022[2010 -11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalprakash Narayan Agrawal, Vs. Acit, Circle-2 D-55, Harishankar Puram Aayakar Bhawan, Gwalior – 474002 City Centre, Gwalior- 474011 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abupa9961F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Anurag Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava, SR. DR

Section 147Section 250(6)

Gangappa Dundappa Agasar, Belagavi vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi

The appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes in aforestated terms

ITA 208/PAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 208/Pan/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Gangappa Dundappa Agasar At Post: Badali, Tal.: Saundatti, Dist.: Belgaum Pan:Apzpa2849H. . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Nfeac/Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Belgaum. . . . . . . . Respondent

For Appellant: Mr Manjunath Dodamani [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Narendra Reddy [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 250Section 253(1)Section 269SSection 271DSection 69A