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)

Alnavar Credit Souhardha Co-Operative Limited, Alnavar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Hubli

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

ITA 926/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavalnavar Credit Souhardaha The Income Tax Officer Co-Operative Ltd. Ward - 1(1), Hubli Vs. 01, Indira Nagar, Alanvar 581103 Pan – Aadaa0459P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav, J.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenges The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2002-23/1049609204(1) Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Cit(A)) Dated 10.02.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Co-Operative Society, Filed Its Return Of Income On 01.10.2018 Declaring Nil Income. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny, During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings The Ld Assessing Officer (Ao) Relying Upon The Judgement Of The Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Totagars Co-Operative Sale Society V. Acit [2023] 188 Taxmann.Com 282 (Sc) Disallowed The Deduction In Respect

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel
Section 250Section 250(6)

Muroor Ramesh Nayak, Sullia vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Puttur

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

ITA 1098/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavmuroor Ramesh Nayak The Income Tax Officer 1/1, Muroor Beejathadka Ward - 1, Puttur Vs. Mandekolu, Sullia Tq. 574256 Pan – Ajjpn9644H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Srinivasa Kamath S., Ca Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 01.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav, J.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenges The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/2004-25/1064225940(1) Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Cit(A)) Dated 19.04.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Brief Fact Of The Case That That The Assessee, An Individual, Prior To His Retirement, Was An Employee Of Forest Department. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Impugned Year On 31.03.2018 Declaring An Income Of Rs.2,88,170/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny In Order To Verify The Source Of Cash Deposited During The Demonetisation Period. 3. During The Assessment Proceedings The Assessee While Attending The Proceedings, Filed A Written Reply Explaining The Source Of Cash Deposits. However, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Did Not Agree With The Replies Of The Assessee & Added An Amount Of Rs.11,00,000/- To The Returned Income.

For Appellant: Shri Srinivasa Kamath S., CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel
Section 250Section 250(6)