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)

M/S. Rpl Projects Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 4(2), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

ITA 2123/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2013-14 M/S Rpl Projects Pvt. Ltd, V/S. Dcit, Circle-4(2), 4Th Floor, Aayakar 24, Hemant Basu Sarani, Flat No.301, Mangalam Bhawan, P-7, Building, Kolkata-700001 Chowringhee Square, [Pan No.Aaecr 3350 D] Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent None अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Shankar Halder, Jcit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 08-05-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 17-05-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata’S Order Dated 16.07.2018 Passed In Case No.11644/Cit(A-2/16-17, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Case Called Twice. None Appears At The Assessee’S Behest. It Is Accordingly Proceeded Ex Parte. 2. Learned Departmental Representative Vehemently Contends During The Course Of Hearing That Both The Lower Authorities Have Rightly Disallowed / Added Income From Other Sources, General Expenses, Food & Lodging Expenses, Business Expenditure Involving Sums Of ₹4,71,948/-, ₹1,37,596/-, ₹5,09,504 & ₹2,77,011/-; Respectively. It Emerges That Cit(A) Has Passed His Lower Appellate Order Ex Parte Against The Assessee For The Reason That It Did

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

M/S. Sonata Commercial Private Limited, Guwahati vs. ITO, Ward - 4(1), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1158/KOL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2008-09 M/S Sonata Commercial V/S. Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd. Saurabh Agarwal Ward-4(1), Aaykar & Associates, 3Rd Floor, Bhawan, P-7, Shankar Complex, Chowrringhee Square, 8Th Floor, Christian Basti, G.S. Road, Guwahati, Assam- Kolkakta-69 781005 [Pan No.Aamcs 0281 L] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Chirag Desai On Behalf Of अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Miraj D Shah, Advocate Shri Radhey Shyam Cit-Dr & ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent Shri Shankar Halder, Jcit-Sr-Dr 08-05-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 17-05-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2008-09 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata’S Order Dated 28.03.2018 Passed In Case No.529/Cit(A)-7/Kol/Ward-4(1)/16-17, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263 R.W.S147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Ground Raised In The Instant Appeal Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities Action Treating Its Share Capital / Premium Amounting To ₹6.47 Crores As “Income From Undisclosed Sources”. There Is No Dispute That The Cit(A) Has Passed His Lower Appellate Order Ex Parte Against The Assessee After Observing That It Had Failed To Appear During The Course Of Lower

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 263

M/S. Dewdrop Enclave (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO - 10(1), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 2135/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Years: 2012-13 M/S Dewdrop Enclave (P) Income Tax Officer, बनाम Ltd. Trinity Towrs,S 6Th Ward-10(1), Aayakar / Floor, 86, Topsia Aroad, V/S. Bhawan, R. No.3/78, P- Kolkata-700046 &,Chowringhee Square, [Pan No.Aakcs 8698 H] Kolkataa-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Smt. Arti Devnath, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Shankar Halder, Jcit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 19-02-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 15-05-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Kolkata’S Order Dated 15.09.2017 Passed In Case No.966/Cit(A)-16/Kol/W.10(1)/2015-16, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File(S) Perused. 2. The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Grounds Raised In The Instant Appeal Seeks To Reverse Both The Lower Authorities Action Treating Its Share Application /Premium Of ₹1.76 Crores As Unexplained Cash Credits U/S. 68 Of The Act. It Transpires At The Outset That The Cit(A) Has Passed His Lower Appellate Order Ex Parte Whilst Confirming The Assessing Officer’S Action Making The Impugned Addition Without Dealing With The

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 68