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)

Shrimati Harwinder Kaur, Kapurthala vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

ITA 96/ASR/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

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

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

Shrimati Shamshada Talib, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Oficer Ward -3(3), Srinagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 25/ASR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

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

Section 144Section 145Section 147Section 250(6)Section 80C

Shri Prakash S. Shah, Mumbai vs. The Dy. Commr. Income Tax, Cen. Circle-II, Rajkot-Gujarat

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 117/RJT/2015[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot12 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Mrs.Annapurna Gupta & Miss Suchitra Kambleassessment Year :2009-10 Prakash Sevantibhai Shah Vs. Dcit, Cent.Cir.2 B-406, Kingston High Streets Rajkot. Nr.D-Mart, Hiranandani Gardens Powai, Mumbai 400 076. अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 29/09/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/10/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld.Cit(A) Under Section 250(6)) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act" For Short) Dated 19.1.2015 Pertaining To The Asst.Year 2009-10. 2. This Is A Recalled Matter. In The First Round Of Appeal, The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed Ex Parte By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 6.9.2018. Thereafter, Assessee Filed Misc. Application Being Ma No.25/Rjt/2019 Seeking Recall Of The Exparte Order. Considering The Pleadings In The Ma & Submissions Of The 2 Ld.Counsel For The Assessee, The Impugned Ex Parte Order Was Recalled Vide Order Dated 29.7.2022 & Restored The Appeal To Its Original Number & Listed For Hearing Afresh On Merit. Accordingly, This Matter Has Come Up Before Us & We Proceed To Adjudicate The Same Hereinafter As Follows.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, ld.CIT-DR
Section 250(6)

Raymon Patel Gelatine Pvt.Ltd., Baroda vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2), Baroda

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2078/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Mrs.Annapurna Gupta & Miss Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250(6)Section 40

Raymon Patel Gelatine Pvt.Ltd., Baroda vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2), Baroda

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1591/AHD/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Mrs.Annapurna Gupta & Miss Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250(6)Section 40

Shri Venkatesh Multi State Co.Op. Credit Soc. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cent. Cir-2(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 115/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Us:

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 80P

Shri Venkatesh Multi State Co Op Credit Soc. Ltd, `Mumbai vs. ACIT Cent. Cir2(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 114/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Us:

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 80P

M/S. Sandipani Education Trust, Kalawad (Shitla) vs. The ITO, Ward-3, Rajkot

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 275/RJT/2019[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot07 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Miss Suchitra Kambleassessment Year :2011-12 M/S.Sandipani Education Trust Vs. Ito, Ward-3 Sardar Graphics Rajkot. Bus Stand Ar Kalavad Dist. Jamnagar. Pan : Aadts 9309 M अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Written Submissions Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 29/09/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2022 आदेश/O R D E R

For Appellant: Written SubmissionsFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr.DR
Section 201(1)Section 250(6)

Khs Machinery Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT. Range-4, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1086/AHD/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Mrs.Annapurna Gupta & Miss Suchitra Kambleassessment Year :2005-06 Khs Machinery P.Ltd. Vs. Acit, Range-4 53, Madhuban Ahmedabad. Nr. Madalpur Underbridge Ahmedabad 380 006. Pan : Aabck 2513 Q अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar With Shri Parin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19/07/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals)-Xxi, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld.Cit(A) Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act" For Short) Dated 18.3.2014 Pertaining To The Asst.Year 2005-06. 2. The Effective Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, AR With Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR
Section 250(6)

Late Ashwin Dhirajlal Dhabalia (L/H Pratik Ashwin Dhabalia), Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-6(1)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 95/AHD/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaasstt.Year : 2012-13 Late : Ashwin Dhirajlal Dhabalia Ito, Ward-6(1)(4) L/H. Pratik Ashwin Dhabalia Vs Ahmedabad. 7, Shiv Darshan Flat 16, Jagabhai Park Rambaug, Maninagar Ahmedabad 380 008. Pan : Abkpd 1455 B

For Respondent: Shri Mukesh Sharma
Section 250(6)

Sh. Mohammad Ibrahim Dar, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Srinagar

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

ITA 52/ASR/2019[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar29 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

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

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

Measage World Vision, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3, Srinagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 453/ASR/2019[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar29 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

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

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 30Section 36Section 68

Jintan Vanijya Private Limited, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-1(2), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1029/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz)& Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 131Section 250

Mukeshbhai Dineshbhai Shah, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward3(2)(5), Surat

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

ITA 160/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.160/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Mukeshbhai Dineshbhai Shah, Vs. The Ito, Ward-3(2)(5), 403, Tulsi Appartment, Killa Surat. Desai Ni Khadki, Katargam, Surat - 395004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bamps0743P (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Akshay Modi, Ca Assessee By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 27/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [In Short “The Ld.Cit(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Appeal No.Itba/Nac/S/250/2021-22/1041448972(1), Dated 24.03.2022 Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Dated 01.11.2019. 2. At The Outset Itself, Learned Counsel For The Assessee Assailed The Impugned Order By Contending That Assessee Could Not Represent His Case Before Ld. Cit(A) & The Order Being An Ex Parte Order, Stood Vitiated On Account Of Violation Of Principle Of Natural Justice. The Ld. Counsel Submitted That Due To Negligence Of The Assessee, The Ld. Cit(A) Passed Ex Parte Order, As The Assessee Did Not Appear Before Him. However, The Ld. Counsel Contended That In The Interest Of Justice An Another Opportunity Should Be Given To The Assessee To Plead His Case Before The Ld. Cit(A).

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

Vipin Indramalji Jariwala, Surat vs. Dy. CIT Central Circle-3, Surat

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

ITA 85/SRT/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.85/Srt/2019 (Assessment Year 2015-16) (Hearing In Physical Court) Vipin Indramalji Jariwala Deputy Commissioner Of 5/83, 5Th Floor, Income-Tax, Central Circle- Vs Jash Apartment, 3, Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Somnath Mahadev Road, Gate, Surat-395002 Umra, Surat-395007 Pan : Aaypj 7345 K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Shaunak Zaveri, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 28.09.2022 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 28.09.2022 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-4, Surat [For Short To As “Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 22.01.2019 For The Assessment Year 2015- 16, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’). The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1.0 That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Aps)-Iv, Surat [Here-In-After Referred To Vipin I. Jariwala As Ld. Cit(Appeals) Was Not Justified & Grossly Erred In Not Providing An Additional Opportunity To Appellant Of Hearing Which Remain Unattended As Appellant’S Concern Person Has Left The Job & Non Of The Heading Notice Did Not Came To Knowledge Of Appellant.

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

Mahotji Chanduji Thakor, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-3, Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as un-admitted

ITA 784/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaasstt.Year : 2010-11 Mahotji Chanduji Thakor208, Ito Ward-3 Rabari Vas Vs Gandhinagar. At & Post. Sughad Gandhinagar. Pan : Ampppt 9107 N

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Sharma, DR
Section 250(6)Section 276C(2)

Ashish Manoj Bhatia, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Cirlce-4(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 338/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaasstt.Year : 2015-16 Ashish Manoj Bhatia Dcit, Cir.4(2) 10, Kameshwardev Society Vs Ahmedabad. Opp: Kishan Bungalows Bodakdev, Ahmedabad. Pan : Ahspb 1199 E

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Thawani
Section 10(38)Section 132(1)Section 250(6)

Chirag Hiralal Barot, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-4(2)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 192/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaasstt.Year : 2014-15 Chirag Hiralal Barot Ito, Ward-4(2)(1) 19, Dhananjay Bungalow Vs Ahmedabad. Sola Bhagwat Temple Sola, Ahmedabad. Pan : Afmpb 5006 J

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Thawani
Section 250(6)

Tejas Rameshchandra Doshi, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(4), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1288/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaasstt.Year : 2015-16 Tejas Rameschandra Doshi Ito, Ward-1(2)(4) 137, Spectrum Comm. Centre Vs Ahmedabad. Nr.Gpo, Relief Road Ahmedabad 380 015. Pan : Afbpd 5586 N

For Respondent: Shri Mukesh Sharma, DR
Section 250Section 250(6)Section 41(1)

Shri Bharatbhai Govindbhai Patel, Kheda vs. ITO, Ward-2, Nadiad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as un-admitted

ITA 1023/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaasstt.Year : 2011-12 Bharatbhai Govindbhai Patel Ito, Ward-2 Sona Tekri Vs Nadiad. Tal. Mahemdabad At. Aklecha Edist.Kheda Pan : Bpbpp 5388 D

For Respondent: Shri Mukesh Sharma, DR
Section 250(6)