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)

Durga Prasada Rao Vattem, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-13(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for sta"s"cal purposes

ITA 1412/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. V. Koteswaramma, Sr. AR
Section 10(38)Section 147

Mani Munjal, Durgapur, Paschim Bardhaman vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(2), Durgapur

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

ITA 1686/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1686/Kol/2024 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Mani Munjal, V/S Ito, Ward-1(2), B-110 Sargam Sarani, Durgapur Sector – 2C, Bidhan Nagar, West Bengal-713212 Pan : Azkpm0635J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Madhumita Das, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

Natasha Chopra, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2293/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: HeardITAT Delhi03 Feb 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Sh. Akshat Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sudeep Dabas, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

Bhim Sah, Patna vs. ITO, Patna

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 674/PAT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna31 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.673&674/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Bhim Sah.…………………………………………………..………….……Appellant Kumhar Toli, Near Mahavir, Kankerbagh Main Road, Patna, Bihar- 800020. [Pan: Amhps2682M] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(2), Patna……....….….. ……………….........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Shailendra Sinha, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit - Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 29, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 31, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Separate Orders Both Dated 07.02.2024 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’) For Assessment Years 2015- 16 & 2016-17 Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Submitted That There Is A Delay Of 232 Days In Filing Both The Appeals. The Assessee Has Filed Applications For Condonation Of Delay Citing Valid & Proper Reasons. After Considering The Averments Made In The Applications, We Condone The Delay In Both The Appeals. 3. First, We Take Up The Issue In Respect Of Ita No.673/Pat/2022 For Assessment Year 2015-16. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That In The Case Of

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

Bhim Sah, Patna vs. ITO, Patna

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 673/PAT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.673&674/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Bhim Sah.…………………………………………………..………….……Appellant Kumhar Toli, Near Mahavir, Kankerbagh Main Road, Patna, Bihar- 800020. [Pan: Amhps2682M] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(2), Patna……....….….. ……………….........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Shailendra Sinha, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit - Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 29, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 31, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Separate Orders Both Dated 07.02.2024 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’) For Assessment Years 2015- 16 & 2016-17 Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Submitted That There Is A Delay Of 232 Days In Filing Both The Appeals. The Assessee Has Filed Applications For Condonation Of Delay Citing Valid & Proper Reasons. After Considering The Averments Made In The Applications, We Condone The Delay In Both The Appeals. 3. First, We Take Up The Issue In Respect Of Ita No.673/Pat/2022 For Assessment Year 2015-16. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That In The Case Of

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

Manish Kumar Prasad, Patna vs. Dc/Ac, Cir-5, Patna

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 477/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna31 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.477/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Manish Kumar Prasad…………….....…..…………………....Appellant Prop. Laxmi International, Purushottam Plaza, Makhania Kuan, Patna, Bihar- 800004. [Pan: Bgppk2783L] Vs. Dc/Ac, Circle-5, Patna….……….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 30, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 31, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.03.2024 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. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 54 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause For Such Delay. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case.

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 250(6)

Sangeeta Devi, Patna vs. ITO, Ward-6(2), Patna

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 433/PAT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna31 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.433/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sangeeta Devi…………………….....…..…………………....Appellant C/O Sri Sachidanand Prasad, Mohanpur, Punpun, Patna, Bihar-804453. [Pan: Ctmpd6717N] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Patna….….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 30, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 31, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.03.2024 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. No One Has Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee In Spite Of Serving Consecutive Notices Of Hearing & The Tribunal Cannot Keep This Appeal Pending For Indefinite Time Due To Non-Representation. Therefore, In The Absence Of Any Authorised Representative Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Decide The Appeal With The Help Of Ld. Dr & Also Considering The Material Available On Record. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That In The Case Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2016-17, The Assessing Officer Noticed That Certain

Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)

Murari Prasad Khatri, Patna vs. ITO, Ward-5(2), Patna

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 359/PAT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna31 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.359/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Murari Prasad Khatri………….....…..…………………....Appellant Dadarmandi, G. Bagh, Patnacity, Bihar-800007. [Pan: Attpk3693B] Vs. Ito, Ward-5(2), Patna….….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Rakesh Verma, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 30, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 31, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 04.11.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Jaipur [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 Care Are That In The Case Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2017-18, Assessment Order Was Passed U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Act Vide Order Dated 14.12.2019 By Making Addition Of Rs.10,78,500/- By Treating The Same As Unexplained Income U/S 69 R.W.S 115Bbe Of The Act. 3. Dissatisfied With The Above Order, The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A). Despite Receiving Three Consecutive Notices, The Assessee Failed To Appear Or Present His Case. The Appeal Of The

Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69

Amarkant Mishra, Samastipur vs. ITO, Ward-3 (3), Samastipur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 81/PAT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna31 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.81/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Amarkant Mishra…………………..…..…………………....Appellant Shyam Narayan Mishra Khrihara Sarai Ranjan, Bihar - 848132 [Pan: Aqlpm0409N] Vs. Nfac, Delhi………………….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri K N Prasad, Adv. & Vishal Kr. Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 30, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 31, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.07.2021 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 His Return Of Income By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.3,90,090/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Followed By Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Asking The Assessee To File Various Details. The Assessing Officer On The Basis Of Material Available On Record Noticed That The Assessee Has Claimed Expenditure Of Rs.70,23,840/-. Due To Failure Of The Assessee To Produce Any Documentary Evidence In Support Of His Claim, The Assessing Officer Disallowed 10% Of The Expentiure To The Extent Of Rs.7,02,384/- & Added The Same To The Total Income Of

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 250(6)

Balusingh Kirar, Rajgarh vs. National Faceless Assesment Center, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 491/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year:2018-19 Balu Singh Kirar Nfac S/O Dariyav Singh Delhi Tapriyahedi बनाम/ Kharpa Zirapur Vs. Rajgarh (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Gukps7110D Assessee By Shri Chandresh Singhvi, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.01.2025

Section 147Section 250(6)Section 253(5)Section 69C

Ashish Goyal HUF, Neemuch vs. Income-Tax Officer, Neemuch

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 387/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 253(5)

Ashish Goyal HUF, Neemuch vs. Income -Tax Officer, Neemuch

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 386/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 253(5)

Shri Rohit Agarwal, Kanpur vs. Income Tax Officer- 3(3), Kanpur

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

ITA 352/LKW/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Rohit Agarwal V. Ito-3(3) Room No.108, 1St Floor Kanpur 49/52, General Ganj Radha Kripa, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Abapa2045C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 08 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31 01 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 154Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

Shree Nirmal Gyan Pratishthan, Pune vs. The CIT (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 2760/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jan 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 143(1)Section 250

Balasaheb Arjun Malawade, Solapur vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Solapur

In the result, the appeal(s) of the assessee for both the AYs 2018-19

ITA 1612/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jan 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 10(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 69ASection 69C

Balasaheb Arjun Malawade, Solapur vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Solapur

In the result, the appeal(s) of the assessee for both the AYs 2018-19

ITA 1608/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jan 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 10(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 69ASection 69C

Rajendra Agrawal, Biroli Bazar vs. ITO Ward 3(1) Purnea, Purnia

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 422/PAT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.422/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Rajendra Agrawal.……………….....…..…………………....Appellant New Sipahi Tola, Maranga Road, Bihar – 85301. [Pan: Aqhpa2439E] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Purnia....….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 27, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 30, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.02.2024 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. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 18 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause Which Was Beyond The Control Of The Assessee & The Delay Was Not Intentional. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case. 3. Brief Facts Of The Care Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Is Engaged In Farming Activities. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 249(2)Section 249(2)(c)Section 250

Dileep Kumar Sah, Siwan vs. ITO Ward2(3), Siwan

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 367/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.367/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dileep Kumar Sah……………….....…..…………………....Appellant Makhdoom Sarai, Turha Toli, Siwan, Bihar-841226. [Pan: Gvnps8999L] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(3), Siwan....….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 30, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.09.2023 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. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 134 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause For Such Delay. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Declared His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 At

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

Raj Kumar, Chapra vs. ITO, Ward- 2(2), Chapra

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 351/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.351/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Raj Kumar………………………….....…..…………………....Appellant Mohalla – Gudari Bazar, Bhagwan Bazar, Daulatganj, Chapra (Saran), Bihar-841301. [Pan: Cikpk8268A] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2), Chapra....….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 27, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 30, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 15.12.2023 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. No One Has Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee In Spite Of Serving Consecutive Notices Of Hearing & The Tribunal Cannot Keep This Appeal Pending For Indefinite Time Due To Non-Representation. Therefore, In The Absence Of Any Authorised Representative Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Decide The Appeal With The Help Of Ld. Dr & Also Considering The Material Available On Record. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Engaged In Fish Marketing. The Assessee Deposited A Sum Of

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)

Jivachh Yadav, Saharsa, Bihar vs. CIT (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 338/PAT/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.338/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jivachh Yadav.………………..….....…..…………………....Appellant P.O & P.S Chandrayan, Nawhatta, Bihar-852201. [Pan: Ahfpy6939A] Vs. Cit(Appeal), Nfac, Delhi..….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Pankaj Kumar, Ca Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 30, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.09.2023 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. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 116 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause For Such Delay. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case. 3. Brief Facts Of The Care Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Is Engaged In Retail Business Of Fertilizer & Seeds. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Act For The Relevant Assessment

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 40A(3)Section 69A