Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act

Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT

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.

223 ITR 480 · 1997 · High Court

2,040

CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another

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.

118 ITR 461 · 1997 · Supreme Court

1,656

CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)

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.

297 CTR 614 · 2017 · High Court

659

Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors.

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.

2 SCC 107 · 1987 · Supreme Court

451

New Diwan Oil Mills v. CIT

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.

296 ITR 495 · 2008 · High Court

351

Inder Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh

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.

2025 INSC 382 · 2025 · Supreme Court

267

Commissioner of Income Tax Madras v. Chenniyappa Mudiliar

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.

1 SCC 591 · 1985 · Reported

225

Vijay Shrinivasrao Kulkarni v. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal

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.

171 Taxmann.com 696 · 2025 · High Court

200

Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Nagpur v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)

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.

69 Taxmann.com 407 · 2016 · High Court

159

ITA 977/HYD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

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)

Koka Sai Sujatha, Secundrabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(2), Hyderabad

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Koka Sai Sujatha Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 10(2) Hyderabad. [Pan: Ahxpk7978F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri A. Venkata Rao Date Of Hearing: 18/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 24/08/2021

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A. Venkata Rao

ITA 7690/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Das Aviation Services Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 7(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 68

DCIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi vs. G D Goenka P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 383/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) Dcit Vs. G D Goenka Pvt. Ltd. Circle – 10(1), N-85, Connaught Place, New Delhi New Delhi - 110001 Pan No. Aaacg 0865 A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Amit Goel, C.A. Revenue By Ms. Anima Baranwal, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing: 18.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.08.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.10.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 35, New Delhi Under Section 250(6) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals: 1. “Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.1,38,94,623/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Non-Deduction Of Tds On Payment Of Examination Fees To Cambridge & International Baccalureate Without Appreciating The Fact That 2 These Foreign Universities Are Rendered The Services In India. 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.1,38,94,623/- Made By The Ao Without Appreciating The Ratio Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Ap Ltd Vs. Cit Relied Upon By The Ao In The Assessment Order. 3. The Appellant Craves Leave, To Add, Alter Or Amend Any Ground Of Appeal Raised Above At The Time Of Hearing.”

ITA 3104/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Hitchki Creation Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) Ita Nos. 3104, 3105, 3106 & 3107/Del/2018 (Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Hitchki Creation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit 1St Floor, Plot No.9, 101, Central Circle Community Centre, Noida Sikka Complex, Preet Vihar, New Delhi – 110092 Pan No. Aacch 4195 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Somil Aggarwal, Adv. Shri Deepash Garg, Adv. Revenue By Shri Najmi, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 10.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.08.2021 Order Per Bench : These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Consolidated Order Dated 31.10.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Iv, Kanpur Relating To Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16. 2 2. Before Us, At The Outset, Learned Ar Submitted That Though The Four Appeals Of The Assessee Are For Four Different Assessment Years, But The Issue Involved In All The Four Appeals Are Identical & He Has Common Submissions To Make. The Aforesaid Contention Of Learned Ar Has Not Been Controverted By Revenue. In View Of The Aforesaid Facts, We For The Sake Of Convenience Proceed To Dispose Of All The Four Appeals By A Consolidated Order But For The Sake Of Reference Refer To The Facts For A.Y. 2012-13. 3. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under :

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 43B

Silamkot Chit Funds Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes as stated herein above

ITA 449/HYD/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Aug 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Silamkot Chit Funds Vs. Acit, Private Limited, Central Circle-6, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaucs 7577 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri Y.V. Bhanunarayana Rao Revenue By: Sri Sanjeev Bhagat, Dr Date Of Hearing: 27/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/08/2021 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

For Appellant: Sri Y.V. Bhanunarayana RaoFor Respondent: Sri Sanjeev Bhagat, DR

Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)

Syeda Qudsiya Nasreen Quadri, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-13(3), Hyderabad

Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn in above terms

ITA 1322/HYD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Smt. M.Narmada, DR

Section 143(3)

M/S M/S Jay Ambey Transport Co, Kanker vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-II, Raipur (Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 327/BIL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia, Hon'Ble & Shri Pawan Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Baral, DR

ITA 5333/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

DCIT, Rohtak vs. Harish Chandra India Ltd., Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the Revenue allowed for 7

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) Dcit Vs. Harish Chandra India Ltd. Rohtak 834/2, Jhang Colony, Rohtak, Haryana Pan No. Aaach 7115 A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By --None-- Revenue By Ms. Anima Baranwal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.08.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.06.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Rohtak Relating To Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under :

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 250

Monolisha Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir.11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical e appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical e appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for sta...

ITA 453/KOL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble Vice-, Kz & Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Monolisha Suppliers Pvt. Ltd......................................................................………………….............Appellant 3Rd & 4Th Floor Arcadia Centre Premise No. 31 Dr. Ambedkar Sarani Kolkata - 700046 [Pan : Aadcm 2791 C] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Kolkata.....................………..…......Respondent Appearances By: None, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 9Th, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 9Th, 2021 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-, Kz :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 4, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 23/01/2020, Passed Ex-Parte, Whereby He Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee For Non- Prosecution.

Section 143(3)

M/S Ketan Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(3), Surat

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

ITA 109/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.109/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S.Ketan Engineering Services Pvt. Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Ward-1(1)(3), Surat. Plot No.148-149, Gidc, Bhatpore, Behind Gal Township, Ongc Road, Surat – 394590. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacck 3955 D (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Shaunak Zaveri - Ca Respondent By : Ms. Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/08/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2014-15, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Surat Dated 18.12.2018, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer, Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 09.12.2016. 2. At The Outset Itself, Shri Shaunak Zaveri, Ld.Counsel For The Assessee Assailed The Impugned Order By Contending That The Assessee Could Not Represent His Case Before The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) [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 During The Appellate Proceedings, Assessee Has Not Received Notice From The Ld.Cit(A), Therefore He Could Not Attend The Proceedings Before The Ld.Cit(A). The Ld.Counsel Took Us Through The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A), Vide Para No.5.1.1. At Page No.2 Wherein The Ld.Cit(A) Has

For Appellant: Shri Shaunak Zaveri - CAFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Singla – Sr.DR

ITA 965/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Navaneeth Reddy, Adilabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Adilabad

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

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonya.Y. 2014-15 Navaneeth Reddy, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Adilabad. Ward-1, Adilabad. Pan: Bbwpn 0766 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Vijay Garladinne, Dr Date Of Hearing: 29/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/08/2021 Order This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (A)-5, Hyderabad In Appeal No. 0522/2016-17/Cit (A)- 5, Dated 22/02/2018 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 147 & U/S. 250(6) Of The Act For The Ay: 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Five Grounds In His Appeal & They Are Extracted Herein Below For Reference: - “1. The Order Of The Ld. Cit (A) Is Erroneous Both On Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 15,87,711/- Representing The Opening Capital Balance Without Considering The Fact That Such An Addition Cannot Be Made For The Year Under Consideration.

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Sri Vijay Garladinne, DR

ITA 9741/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Tirumala Vincom Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-25(3), New Delhi

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr.DR

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

M/S M/S Shyam Construction, Kawardha (C.G.) vs. The the Income Tax Officer, Kawardha (C.G.)

In the result, appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 203/BIL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gitesh Kumar, DR

ITA 97/SRT/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Hansaben Chhaganbhai Kakadiya, Rajkot vs. ITO Ward 3(3)(2), Surat

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.97/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) Smt.Hansaben Chaganbhai Kotadiya, The Income Tax Officer, V 302, Ganesh Apartment, Opp. Ajemera, Ward-3(3)(2), Surat. S. Shastrinagar, Nana Mava Road, Rajkot. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bnfpk 5363 K (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manoj Makhania - Ca Respondent By : Shri Sita Ram Meena – Sr.Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 30/07/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/07/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2015-16, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Surat Dated 30.11.2018. 2. At The Outset Itself, The Ld.Counsel Assailed The Impugned Order By Contending That The Assessee Could Not Represent His Case Before The Ld.Cit(A) & The Order Being An Ex-Parte Order, Stood Vitiated On Account Of Violation Of Principle Of Natural Justice. The Ld.Counsel Stated That During The Appellate Proceedings Notice Of Hearing Was Not Served On The Assessee, Therefore, Assessee Could Not Appear Before The Ld.Cit(A). Apart From This, The Assessee Has Filed Written Submissions Before The Ld.Cit(A), However, The Ld.Cit(A) Did Not Consider The Written Submissions & Passed An Ex-Parte Order Without Adjudicating The Issues Involved In Assessee’S Appeal On Merit. Therefore, The Ld.Counsel Contended That In The Interest Of Justice Another Opportunity To Contest The Appeal Before The Ld.First Appellate Authority May Be Granted To The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Makhania - CAFor Respondent: Shri Sita Ram Meena – Sr.DR

ITA 96/SRT/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Shri Rameshchandra R. Mehta, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(4), Now New Ward-3(2)(3), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Rameshchandra Income Tax Officer Rangildas Mehta, Ward-3(2) 3, Vs 82, Tribhovan Nagar Society, Aaykar Bhavan, Ved Road, Surat-394 004 Majura Gate, E-Mail: Kkirannco@Hmail.Com Surat-395001 Ph: 9825141413 Pan : Abjpm 8972 H Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

Section 143Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

M/S Highway Auto Centre, Surat vs. Dy.CIT, Circle2(2), Surat

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

ITA 702/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.702/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S.Highway Auto Centre, The Deputy Commissioner Of V National Highway No.8, Kholwad, Tal- Income Tax, S. Kamrej, Surat – 394 180. Circle-2(2), Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfh 0749 K (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mitish Modi - CAFor Respondent: Shri Sita Ram Meena – Sr.DR

ITA 532/CHANDI/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jul 2021AY 2006-07

M/S Glaxosmithkline Asia Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta, CIT DR