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)

Delite Buildwell Private Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-7(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1749/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 Delite Buildwell Private Ltd., Vs. Acit, 151-A, Club Road, Sainik Farms, Circle-7(1), New Delhi – 110 062. New Delhi. Pan: Aaecc7113K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V.K. Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ravinder Singh Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2023 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-3, New Delhi, Dated 03.12.2019 For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Ground Of Appeal No.1 Of The Assessee Reads As Under:- “1(A) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Passing Ex-Parte Order Without Serving Notice Dt. 14.08.2019, 23.09.2019 & 05.11.2019. 1 (B) That The Ld. Cit (A) Has Failed To Place Any Evidence For Issuing Of Notice Dated 14.08.2019 For Fixing Date Of Hearing On 16.09.2019, Notice Dated 23.09.2019 For Fixing Date Of Hearing On 04.11.2015 & Notice Dated 05.11.2019 For Fixing Date Of Hearing On 02.12.2019. No Such Alleged Notices Were Received By Appellant Company At Registered Address As Mentioned In Form No. 35 Of Appeal. 1(C ) That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Totally Ignored The Fact That In Form 35 There Is A Specific Column Wherein Mentioned That “Whether Notices / Communication May Be Sent On Email”. The Appellant Company Has Stated “No”. Thus The Cit(A) Has Ignored Specific Request Of The Appellant Which Is Duly Provided As Per Provisions Of Income Tax Act / Rules In Form No. 35. 1(D) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Not Sent Any Notice On Email Duly Stated In Form No. 35 As Vasudevinfrastructure@Qamil.Com Duly Verified By The Appellant Company From The Email Records. Thus The Passing Of Exparte Order Is Bad In Law & Deserves To Be Quashed.”

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ravinder Singh Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 250

Neelkamal Cineplex P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-18(1), New Delhi

ITA 9701/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2015-16 Neelkamal Cineplex Pvt. Ltd., Versus Income-Tax Officer, 107, 2Nd Floor, Shreshtha Ward 24(3), New Delhi Vihar, New Delhi. Pan: Aaccn3668G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Bansal, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 250(6)

M/S N. A. Shaikh, Ankleshwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), Bharuch

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 94/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) M/S N.A. Shaikh, I.T.O., Shop No. 1, Old Shopping Centre, Ward 2(5), Vs. Nr. Pratin Crossing, Gidc, Bharuch. Ankleshwar-393002. Pan No. Aabfn 9617 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 2Section 250(6)Section 254(1)Section 40

Tusharkumar Ganeshbhai Gujarati, Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 269/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Tusharkumar Ganeshbhai Gujarati, A.C.I.T., B-81, 2Nd Floor, Satlal Society, B/H, Central Circle-2, Vs. Hira Baug, Varachha Road, Surat. Surat-395006. Pan No. Auspg 5205 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 254(1)Section 69A

Sh. Laxman Singh Chahar, .R. Compounder Ki Gali, Devipura, Sikar vs. ITO, Ward-4, Sikar

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

ITA 434/JPR/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: It, Hon’Ble Itat Is Prayed To Decide The Appeal On Merit Instead Of Setting Aside The Matter To Ld. Cit(A).

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal , CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 250(6)

Shyam Narayan Trades Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3187/MUM/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 3187 & 2740/Mum/2022 (A.Y.2011-12) Shyam Narayan Trades Vs. Income Tax Officer-4(3)(1) Private Limited Room No. 637, 6 Th Floor, Shop No.3, Building No. Aaykar Bhavan, 136, Kalbadevi Road, M.K.Road, Vithalwadi, Kalbadevi, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400002 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aakcs2903B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Bhargavi Raval Respondent By : Bharat Andhale Date Of Hearing 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): Both These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Different Orders Of Nafc, Delhi. On The Basis Of Assessment Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) & 144 R.W.S 147 Of The Act. “1.01 The Learned Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate The Fact That The Appellant Has Asked For An Adjournment As The Documents Was To Be Gathered From Multiple Sources & Required Some Time To Compile The Said Documents Before Submission To The Learned Cit(A) The Learned Cit(A) Dismissed The Appeal Of The Appellant Company Without Considering The Details Available On Record With Cit(A) & The Department & Without Giving Any Opportunity For Video Conference To The Appellant Company. 1.02 The Learned Cit(A) Ought To Have Accepted The Request Of The Appellant Company & Should Have Granted The Necessary Adjournment For Submission

For Appellant: Bhargavi RavalFor Respondent: Bharat Andhale
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 24Section 250

Shyam Narayan Trades Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2740/MUM/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 3187 & 2740/Mum/2022 (A.Y.2011-12) Shyam Narayan Trades Vs. Income Tax Officer-4(3)(1) Private Limited Room No. 637, 6 Th Floor, Shop No.3, Building No. Aaykar Bhavan, 136, Kalbadevi Road, M.K.Road, Vithalwadi, Kalbadevi, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400002 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aakcs2903B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Bhargavi Raval Respondent By : Bharat Andhale Date Of Hearing 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): Both These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Different Orders Of Nafc, Delhi. On The Basis Of Assessment Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) & 144 R.W.S 147 Of The Act. “1.01 The Learned Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate The Fact That The Appellant Has Asked For An Adjournment As The Documents Was To Be Gathered From Multiple Sources & Required Some Time To Compile The Said Documents Before Submission To The Learned Cit(A) The Learned Cit(A) Dismissed The Appeal Of The Appellant Company Without Considering The Details Available On Record With Cit(A) & The Department & Without Giving Any Opportunity For Video Conference To The Appellant Company. 1.02 The Learned Cit(A) Ought To Have Accepted The Request Of The Appellant Company & Should Have Granted The Necessary Adjournment For Submission

For Appellant: Bhargavi RavalFor Respondent: Bharat Andhale
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 24Section 250

Vijender Singh Chaudhary, Delhi vs. ACIT, Range-62, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 8578/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usvijender Singh Vs. Acit Chaudhary Range-62 10, Transport Center, New Delhi Punjabi Bagh, Delhi – 110 026 Pan No. Addpc 8628 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Written Application By E-Mail Revenue By Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.03.2023

Section 250(6)

First Stp Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Cor.Range 2, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 722/CHNY/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Mar 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manjunatha. Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.718, 719, 720, 721 & 722/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2014-15 M/S.First Stp Pvt. Ltd., V. The Income Tax Officer, 30-A, South Phase, Vi Cross Road, Ward-Ii (1), Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Chennai. Guindy, Chennai.

For Appellant: Mr.T. Chaitanya Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

First Stp Private Limited, Chennai vs. ITO Cor.Ward 2 (2), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 721/CHNY/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Mar 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manjunatha. Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.718, 719, 720, 721 & 722/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2014-15 M/S.First Stp Pvt. Ltd., V. The Income Tax Officer, 30-A, South Phase, Vi Cross Road, Ward-Ii (1), Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Chennai. Guindy, Chennai.

For Appellant: Mr.T. Chaitanya Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

First Stp Private Limited, Chennai vs. ITO Cor.Ward 2 (1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 720/CHNY/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Mar 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manjunatha. Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.718, 719, 720, 721 & 722/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2014-15 M/S.First Stp Pvt. Ltd., V. The Income Tax Officer, 30-A, South Phase, Vi Cross Road, Ward-Ii (1), Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Chennai. Guindy, Chennai.

For Appellant: Mr.T. Chaitanya Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

First Stp Private Limited, Chennai vs. ITO Ward - II (1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 719/CHNY/2022[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Mar 2023AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manjunatha. Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.718, 719, 720, 721 & 722/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2014-15 M/S.First Stp Pvt. Ltd., V. The Income Tax Officer, 30-A, South Phase, Vi Cross Road, Ward-Ii (1), Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Chennai. Guindy, Chennai.

For Appellant: Mr.T. Chaitanya Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

First Stp Private Limited, Chennai vs. ITO Ward - II (1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 718/CHNY/2022[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Mar 2023AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manjunatha. Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.718, 719, 720, 721 & 722/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2014-15 M/S.First Stp Pvt. Ltd., V. The Income Tax Officer, 30-A, South Phase, Vi Cross Road, Ward-Ii (1), Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Chennai. Guindy, Chennai.

For Appellant: Mr.T. Chaitanya Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Dura Line India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT Circle-7(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 1757/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri C.M. Gargassessment Year: 2016-17 Dura Line India Private Ltd., Vs. Acit, 7Th Floor, Tower Neil, Circle-7(2), Neil Rao Towers, Road No.3, New Delhi. Epip Phase I, Whitefield, Bangalore – 560 066. Pan: Aabcd4024B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Preeti Goel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Khanna, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.03.2023 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 04.02.2020 Of The Cit(A)-3, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Apropos Ground No.1, The Ld. Assessee’S Representative Submitted That The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A) Has Been Passed On Incorrect Interpretation Of Law & Facts & By Wrongly Stating That The Assessee Had Not Complied With The Notice Dated 10Th January, 2020. The Ld. Ar, Drawing Our Attention To The First Appellate Order, Submitted That The Ld.Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee On The Allegation Of Non-Prosecution Of Appeal Without Adjudicating The Grounds Of The Assessee Raised In Form No.35 Of The First Appeal Keeping Aside The Submissions & Explanation Of The Assessee. Therefore, The Ld. Ar Submitted That The Assessee Was Not Provided Due Opportunity Of Hearing Before The Ld.Cit(A) & The Impugned First Appellate Order Has Been Passed In Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice.

For Appellant: Ms Preeti Goel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Khanna, Sr. DR
Section 250

M.P.Vidhyut Mandal Karamchari Sahkarisakh Sansthan Ltd, Indore vs. The ACIT 4(1), Indore

ITA 349/IND/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2014-15 M.P. Vidhyut Mandal Acit, 4(1) Karamchari Sahkarisakh Indore बनाम/ Sansthan Ltd. Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aaaam 0580 C Assessee By Shri Vijay Bansal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 23.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

Sunrise Integrated Textiles P. Ltd., Surat vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITSSA 16/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Madhumita Royit(Ss)A No.16/Ahd/2018 Assessment Year :2012-13 & Assessment Year : 2013-14 Sunrise Integrated Textiles P.Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Cent.Cir.2(1) 1, Gajera Park Ahmedabad. B/H. Saurashtra Bhavan Varachha Road Surat 395 008 Pan : Aancs 8385 A 0 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.C. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, Cit-Dr & Ms.Anambenish, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10/01/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/03/2023

For Appellant: Shri A.C. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT-DR and Ms.AnamBenish, Sr.DR
Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 40A(3)

Mahesh Kumar Natvarbhai Patel, Surat vs. DCIT, Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 237/SRT/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Mahesh Kumar Natvarbhai Patel, D.C.I.T., Chhapania Mohollo, Adajan Gam, Surat. Vs. Adajan, Surat. Pan No. Abepp 8002 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250(6)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Praveen, Haryana vs. ITO, Ward 3, Karnal

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

ITA 900/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Varun Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr DR
Section 250Section 6

Forsan Healthcare P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for 8

ITA 2861/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Chandra Mohan Gargforsan Healthcare P. Ltd. Vs. Dcit S-231, 1St Floor, Greater Central Circle – 03 Kailash, Part- Ii, Delhi New Delhi-110 048 Pan No. Aaacf 7089 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Satyajeet Goel, C.A. Revenue By Shri Pankaj Khanna, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.03.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.10.2022 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under :- Forsan Healthcare P. Ltd. Vs. Dcit 2

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 153D

Shri Abdul Hamid Malik, Anantnag vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3, Srinagar

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

ITA 236/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Prashant Singh, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 246ASection 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251