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)

Arihant Reail Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 752/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.751 & 752/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2021-22 V. M/S.Arihant Retail Pvt. Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner- 29, Namachivaya Chetty Street, Of Income Tax, Old Washermanpet, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai-600 021. Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri Yeshwanth Kumar, CA
Section 250

Arihant Retail Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 751/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.751 & 752/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2021-22 V. M/S.Arihant Retail Pvt. Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner- 29, Namachivaya Chetty Street, Of Income Tax, Old Washermanpet, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai-600 021. Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri Yeshwanth Kumar, CA
Section 250

Mr. Ahok Kumar Ajay, Chennai vs. ACIT, Non Corporate Ward-9(1), Chennai

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

ITA 747/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.747/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 V. Shri Ashok Kumar Ajay, The Asst. Commissioner – No.11, Clemens Road, Of Income Tax, Vepery, Chennai-600 007. Non-Corporate Ward-9(1), Chennai. [Pan: Afapa 0605 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 250Section 250(6)

Aircel Cellular Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 599/CHNY/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.599/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 V. M/S.Aircel Cellular Ltd., The Dcit, 769, Spencer Plaza, Corporate Circle-1(1), Mount Road, Chennai-600 002. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacr 5136 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 238Section 250Section 31(1)

Kamalam Sambandam Alagiri Educational and Charitable Trust, Cuddalore vs. ITO, Delhi

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

ITA 585/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.585/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. Kamalam Sambandam Alagiri The Ito (Exemptions), Educational & Charitable Trust, Ward-2, 069, Thirupaninatham, Chennai. Ennanagaram & Post, Chidambaram Taluk, Cuddalore-604 001. [Pan: Aabtk 6500 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishnan Ramaswamy
Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)

M/S Aura Merchants Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-9(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 385/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 250(6)

M/S Aura Merchants Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-9(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 384/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 250(6)

M/S. Karnataka Power Transmiss, Raichur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Raichur

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

ITA 994/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Years : 2020-21 M/S Karnataka Power Transmiss, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1, 71-71, Kptcl Employee Co-Op. Power Raichur. House, Station Road, Raichur – 584 102. Pan – Aaaak 4223 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Sunaiana Bhatia, C.A Revenue By : Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2024 O R D E R Per Shri Prakash Chand Yadavthe Present Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising From The Order Passed By The Nfac, Delhi Dated 29/04/2024 In Din No. Itba/Nfac/S/ 250/2024-25/1064431034(1) For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Assessee Is Cooperative Society Registered Under The Karnataka State Co-Operative Society’S Act 1959. The Society Is Engaged In The Activity Of Carrying Of Business Of Providing Credit Facilities To Its Members. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 24/09/2020 Declaring Nil Income. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny After Issuing Statutory Notices. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, Page 2 Of 4 The Ao Observed That The Assessee Has Earned Interest Income Received From Cooperative Institutions Amounting To Rs.10,12,973/- & Dividend Income Of Rs.1,13,240/-. The Ao Relying On The Judgment Of Dcit Vs. Totagars Co-Operative Society Ltd, Has Held That Assessee Is Not Entitled For Deduction On The Amounts Of Interest Income As Well As Dividend Income. Accordingly, The Ao Assessed That Income Under The Head ‘Income From Other Sources’ & Made An Addition Of Rs 11,86,369/-.

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaiana Bhatia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 250(6)Section 57Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

JCIT(OSD), C-1, (E), Chandigarh vs. The Sikh Educational Society, Patiala

ITA 874/CHANDI/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Against Assessment Order Dt. 30/03/2013 Which Was Passed By Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala Range, Patiala, Punjab Which Order Is Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao’S Order”.

For Appellant: Shri Vibhor Garg, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250(6)

The Sikh Educational Society, Patiala vs. Addl. CIT, Range, Patiala

ITA 687/CHANDI/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Against Assessment Order Dt. 30/03/2013 Which Was Passed By Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala Range, Patiala, Punjab Which Order Is Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao’S Order”.

For Appellant: Shri Vibhor Garg, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250(6)

Khengarsinh Jadavbhai Gohel, Petlad vs. ITO Petlad, Petlad

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

ITA 579/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad21 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M. Anand Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253(3)Section 69A

Padmanaba Reddy Metukuru, Nellore vs. ITO., Ward-1, Nellore

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

ITA 107/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 250Section 250(6)

Rajesh Govind Rao, Mumbai vs. ITO-42(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 269/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 50CSection 68

Pramod Dhanaji Patil Represented by Legar Heir Nirmala Patil, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 28(2)(4) Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 249/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Pramod Dhanaji Patil Vs. Income Tax Officer, House No. 178, Kaulali Ward-28(2)(4) Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai Navi Mumbai 400701 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Alnpp8443Q Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: H.M. Bhatt
Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Mitesh Rameshbhai Patel, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 4451/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(C)

Irla Co-Op Hsg Soceity Ltd, Mumbai vs. Ward 25(2)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 4269/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Irla Co-Op Hsg Society Vs. Ito, Ward 25(2)(5) Limited, 191/A, Prime Maharashtra – 400054 Mall Irla, Vile Parle (West) Mumbai – 400056 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaai4878F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Pramod Parida Respondent By : H.M. Bhatt Date Of Hearing 13.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 23.11.2018 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. Disallowance U/S 43B- 61,01,040/- I) The Id. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Statutory Liabilities Without Appreciating That The Same Had Been Paid Before The Due Date Of Filing Of Return U/S 139(1) & Further Erred In Holding That The Appellant, A Co-Op Housing Society (Chs), Is Doing Business Activity, Therefore, As Sec 438 Is Not Applicable On The Face It Being Eligible For The Benefit U/S 80P, The Disallowance Of Rs.61.01.040/- Is Uncalled For & The Same May Be Deleted Ii) Without Prejudice To Above, The Id Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Concept Of Mutuality Does Not Apply To The Appellant Where There Is Close Nexus Of All Its Funds Flow Are Utilized Exclusively For The Benefit Of Its Members, Hence The Disallowance Made May Be Deleted As Consistency Needs To Be Respected. 2. Taxability U/S. 22 Or U/S. 56- Rental Or Hire Charges Rs.8,73,634/-

For Appellant: Pramod ParidaFor Respondent: H.M. Bhatt
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 22Section 24Section 43BSection 56Section 80P

Convonix Systems Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 15(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4061/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudharyconvonix Systems Private Vs. Assistant Commissioner Limited, 15Th Floor, Urmi Of Income Tax, Circle Estate, 95, Ganpatrao 15(1)(2), 4Th Floor, Kadam Marg, Delisle Road Aayakar Bhavan, S.O. Mumbai, Maharishi Karve Road, Maharashtra – 400013 Mumbai – 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccc5795P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Pratik Shah Respondent By : H.M. Bhatt Date Of Hearing 22.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac For A.Y. 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Order Passed By The Ld. Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Tax ("Ld. Ao") Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Assessing The Income Of The Appellant At Inr 18,07,08,220/-Instead Of Returned Income Of Inr 17,15,15,710/- & The Demand Raised Thereon On The Appellant Is Invalid & Bad In Law, The Appellant Prays That The Addition Made By The Ld. Ao Be Deleted 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals ['1D. Cit(A)'] Erred In Confirming The Order Of The Ld. Ao In Making An Adhoc Disallowance Of 50% In Relation To The Shared Service Expenses Amounting To Inr 91,92,505/-.

For Appellant: Pratik ShahFor Respondent: H.M. Bhatt
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270A

Bharatkumar Bhikhabhai Chavda, Hariyala Kheda vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Nadiad

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

ITA 797/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad20 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad In Ita No. 797/Ahd/2024 For Assessment Year 2017-18 Has Arisen From The Appellate Order Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/ 2023-24/1059995984(1) Dated 22-01-2024 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals),National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac), Delhi , Which Appeal In Turn Has Arisen From The Assessment Order Dated 07-11-2019 Passed By The 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M. Anand Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 253(3)Section 69A

Smt. Goworamma Lingappa Manjula, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 953/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Years : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Guruswamy H, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for the Department (DR)
Section 250(6)

Ambika Property Ventures Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 14(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1003/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: him by way of a statement of facts and the grounds of appeal [Marvel Industries Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(2), Mumbai, dated 19/07/2022, ITA No. 729/Mum/2022, Paragraph 3].

For Appellant: Shri S.M. BandiFor Respondent: Shri Raj Singh Meel
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)