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)

Md. Munnaf Ahmed, Guwahati vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Guwahati

In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed while the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 90/GTY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati22 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] Assessment Year: 2015-16 Md. Munnaf Ahmed.................................……………………………………………………….....Appellant House No. 61, Panjabari Road Juripar, Nowapara, Opp. Iddgah Maidan, Guwahati – 781 027. [Pan : Agepa 5942 M] Acit, Circle – 3, Guwahati ………………………………………………..............................Respondent Guwahati. S.A. No. 13/Gau/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 90/Gau/2019) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Md. Munnaf Ahmed.................................………………………………………………………...Appellant House No. 61, Panjabari Road Juripar, Nowapara, Opp. Iddgah Maidan, Guwahati – 781 027. [Pan : Agepa 5942 M] Acit, Circle – 3, Guwahati ………………………………………………............................Respondent Guwahati. Appearances By: Shri Kishor Jain, Ca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sandip Sengupta, Jcit, Sr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 25, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 25, 2019 O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtapat The Time Of Hearing Of Stay Application Filed By The Assessee In This Case Being, The Learned Representatives Of Both The Sides Have Agreed That The Corresponding Appeal Of The Assessee Being Ita No. 90/Gau/2019 Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Passed Ex-Parte Can Itself Be Taken Up For Hearing & Disposed Of. Accordingly, They Have Taken Notice & The Appeal Of The Assessee Itself Has Been Heard.

Section 250

Rajib Kumar Som, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 23, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1970/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2011-12 Dcit, Circle-23, 9Th Rajib Kumar Som बनाम / Saila Mansion, 1St Floor, Floor, R. No.07, V/S. 142, Hosainpur Road, Bamboo-Villa,169, Madurdaha, Kalikapur, Ajc Bose Road, Nr. Lokenath Mandir & Kolkat-14 Rupdashi Market, E.K.T. Kolkata-700107 [Pan No.Aivps 2962 A] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri C.J. Singh, Jcit, Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 06-03-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 22-03-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2011-12, Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-19, Kolkata’S Order Dated 27.12.2017 Passed In Case No.368/Cit(A)-19/Kol/14-15, Involving Proceedings U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. It Emerges At The Outset That This Assessee’S Instant Appeal Suffers From Nine Days’ Delay In Filing. It Has Placed On Record Its Condonation Petition Attributing Reasons Thereof To Various Factors For Example Compilation Of Necessary Record Within The Limitation Prescribed. Mr. Singh Is Fair Enough In Not Disputing All These Condonation Averments. I Therefore Conclude That The Assessee’S Above Stated Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Of Nine Days’ Is Neither Intentional Nor Deliberate. The Same Stand Condone Accordingly.

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)