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)

Kcl Stock Broking Limited, Thane(W) Maharashtra vs. DCIT/ACIT 3(1), Indore

ITA 273/IND/2023[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Indore04 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Kcl Stock Broking Acit, Limited, Circle 3(1), B-3/204, Saket Complex Indore बनाम/ Thane, Vs. Mumbai (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aadck7407P Assessee By Shri Aniket Garg, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04.01.2024

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250(6)

A to Z Stock Trade Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 1(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1075/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

Kaybee Natural Resources Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-15(2), Kolkata.

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

ITA 1098/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Rajesh Kumar

Section 250(6)

Ujala Holdings Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 27(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 3393/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri V. Rajkumar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 250(6)

Mahendra Ravindra Salunkhe, Panvel City vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

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

ITA 3204/MUM/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudharymahendra Ravindra Vs. Income Tax Officer Salunkhe, A-202, 35(2)(3) Swarganaga Chs Ltd, Plot Kautilya Bhavan No.62, Sector 18, Bkc, 400050 Kamothe, Panvel City, Mumbai Raigarh- 410209 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Bkfps6678L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Lieder Panicker Date Of Hearing 27.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 01.01.2024 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, Dated 11.07.2023 For A.Y. 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. In The Appeal The Assessee Had Stated That He Had The Total Income Of Rs.2,26,652. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Had Given The Assessee An Opportunity To Hear, Firstly In The Year Of 2021 However Due To Second Wave Of Covid 19 He Was Not Able To Attend The Same As During The Concerned Period Survival Was The Only Challenge. Later, The Concerned Assessee In The Year 2023 Was Diagnosed With Medical Illness Which Impaired His Physical Inability & Mental Stability To Attend The Hearings. The Order Was Dismissed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals By Passing An Order Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 11/07/2023. The Notices Received From The Cit Appeals Did Not Contain Any Specific Information To Be Submitted Due To Which The Assessee Was Under The Presumption That They Will Ask Additional Questions In The Next Notice. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend, Alter Or Delete The Said Ground Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Lieder Panicker

Section 148Section 194HSection 250Section 250(6)Section 43(5)

Talwar Medicos, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-50(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 3299/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Umesh Singh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr.DR

Section 144Section 250(6)

Ghanshyam Bhikhbhai Sutaria, Surat vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Surat, Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Gate

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

ITA 655/SRT/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.655/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ghanshyam Bhikhabhai Sutaria, Vs. The Ito, 6/1826-27, Gopinath Chambers, Ward – 2(1)(1), Mahidharpura, Surat - 395003 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acips4070N (Appellant) (Respondent) Ms. Chaitali Shah, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29/12/2023

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

Bhanuben Rajeshbhai Rathod, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(6), Surat

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

ITA 650/SRT/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.650/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Physical Hearing) Bhanuben Rajeshbhai Rathod, The Ito, Vs. Block No.8, Shree Darshan Ward – 1(3)(6), Society, Nr. Dhabholi Jahangirpura Surat Bridge, Jahangirpura, Surat - 395005 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Atkpr4904P (Appellant) (Respondent) Ms. Chaitali Shah, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29/12/2023

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

Kamlesh Jethmal Shah, Silvassa vs. Income Tax Officer, Silvassa Ward, Silvassa

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

ITA 369/SRT/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.369/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2009-10) (Hybrid Hearing) Kamlesh Jethmal Shah, Vs. The Ito, Plot No.P-9/1, Everest Garden, Silvassa Ward, Opp. Indian Bank, Naroli Bank, Silvassa Naroli Road, Silvassa – 396230. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aeqps7259R (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate Appellant By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 07/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29/12/2023

Section 144

Satyannarayana Konjeti, Tangutur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Ongole

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

ITA 564/HYD/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Dec 2023AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Babu, DR

Section 250Section 250(6)