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 2014/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

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)

Ranjan Basu, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 62, Kolkata

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

Shri Ravinder Singh Mahl, Amritsar vs. Shri Jagvir Singh Income Tax Officer, Amritsar

In the result, the additions of Rs

ITA 193/ASR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.193(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year:2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. A.R. Dogra (Ld. Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (Ld. DR)

ITA 669/CHANDI/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

ITO, W-6(1), Mohali vs. Sh. Nirankar Singh, Mohali

In the result, the Departmental appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Tribunal & Further Vide Para 13 Of The Said Circular It Has Been Clarified That Said Circular Is Applicable

For Appellant: Smt.Chanderkanta, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA

ITA 64/CHANDI/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Sona Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana vs. ITO, W-5(4), Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Us. Even The Hearing Fixed On 07.08.2018

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt.Chanderkanta, Sr.DR

ITA 455/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Laxmi Devi Mohata, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(2)(3), Surat

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

ITA 449/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Nitesh Bhagchand Jain, Surat vs. ACIT, Cir.-1(2), Surat

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

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.449/Srt/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2014-15 Nitesh Bhagchand Jain, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Lower Ground, M.R.House, Of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Kohinoor Textile Market, Surat. Ring Road, Surat. [Pan: Aaxpj 5234 G] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Ramesh Malpani – Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri P.S.Choudhary – Sr.Dr

ITA 708/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Debasish Bhattacharjee, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 61(1), Kolkata

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri A.T. Varkey] I.T.A. No. 708/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Debasish Bhattacharjee.................................…………………………..................................Appellant 394/1, Neel Appartment, Kendua Main Road, Kolkata – 700 084. [Pan: Adzpb 9976 E] Ito Ward 61(1), Kolkata...................…………………………………………………….........Respondent 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, 1St Floor, Bamboo Villa, Central Building, Kolkata – 700 014. Appearances By: None Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sankar Halder, Jcit, Sr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 08, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 08, 2019 Order Per P.M. Jagtapthis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 19, Kolkata Dated 11.01.2018 Passed Ex-Parte Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee.

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

DCIT, Ludhiana vs. M/S Jain Udhay International Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross

ITA 971/CHANDI/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Dr. Gulshan Raj, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri. Ashwani Kumar, CA

ITA 620/SRT/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Gemalsingh Mohansingh Solanki, Surat vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(2), Surat

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

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meena

ITA 476/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

M/S Aina Construction, Surat vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(3), Surat

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

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meena

ITA 456/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Jagmoham Ramjidas Malhotra, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1(3)(2), Surat

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

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.456/Srt/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2014-15 Jagmohan Ramjidas Malhotra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 7-D, Meghrath Apartment, Ward-1(3)(2), Surat. Bhattar Road, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Abcpm 1022 B] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Ramesh Malpani – Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri P.S.Choudhary – Sr.Dr राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By 09.01.2019 सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 11.01.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On आदेश /O R D E R Per Diva Singh, Jm: 1. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Assailing The Correctness Of The Order Dated 22.05.2018 Of Cit(A)-2, Surat Pertaining To 2014-15 Assessment Year On Various Grounds, However, Since The Parties Were Heard Only In Respect Of Ground No.1 To 3 The Same Are Reproduced Under : “1) That The Ex-Parte Appeal Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)] Is Wrong & Bad-In-Law As The Same Has Been Passed Without Hearing The Appellant. 2) That The Ex-Parte Appeal Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A) Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant Is Wrong & Bad-In-Law As The Same Has Been Passed Without Considering The Submission & Contentions Of The Appellant Furnished In The Form Of ‘Statement Of Facts’ Along With The Appeal & Also By Way Of Arguments Raised During The Assessment Proceedings As Re-Produced In The Assessment Order. 3) That The Ex-Parte Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A) Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant Is Wrong & Bad-In-Law As The Same Has Been Passed Without Deciding The Various Grounds Of Appeal On Merits On The Basis Of Material Available On Record, Statement Of Facts & Grounds Of Appeal.”