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)

Hem Raj Jain, Ludhiana vs. ITO, W-1(1), Ludhiana

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

ITA 1415/CHANDI/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: I.T.A.T. & The Sole Issue Relates To The Computation Of Long Term Capital Gain Earned By The Assessee On Sale Of Property. Drawing Our Attention To The Facts Of The Case, As Reproduced At Para 3 Of The Cit(A)’S Order, It Was Pointed Out That The Assessment Had Been Framed On The Assessee For The Impugned Year U/S 143(3) Of The Act Making Addition On Account Of Long Term Capital

For Appellant: Shri D.K. Goyal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ankur Alya, JCIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 50C

DCIT, C-1(1), Chandigarh vs. Smt. Sandhya Khandelia, Chandigarh

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed due to low tax

ITA 1036/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Nov 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Smt.Chanderkanta, Sr.DRFor Respondent: None
Section 250(6)

ITO, W-7(3), Ludhiana vs. M/S Pentavox India (P) Ltd., Ludhiana

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed due to low tax

ITA 1034/CHANDI/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Nov 2018AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Smt.Chanderkanta, Sr.DRFor Respondent: None
Section 250(6)

ITO, W-2(1), Chandigarh vs. Shri Vinay Kumar, Chandigarh

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed due to low tax

ITA 1021/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Nov 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Smt.Chanderkanta, Sr.DRFor Respondent: None
Section 250(6)

ACIT, C-2(1), Chandigarh vs. M/S Punjab State Container and Warehousing Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed due to low tax

ITA 1020/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Nov 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Smt.Chanderkanta, Sr.DRFor Respondent: None
Section 250(6)

ACIT, Chandigarh vs. M/S Punjab Information & Communication Technology Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed due to low tax

ITA 36/CHANDI/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Nov 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Smt.Chanderkanta, Sr.DRFor Respondent: None
Section 250(6)

Bijendra Singh, Noida vs. ITO, Ward- 1(2), Noida

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3452/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Kumar Sehgal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. B.S. Anant, Sr. Dr
Section 144Section 147Section 250(6)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2, Amritsar vs. M/S Shiva Construction Company, Batala

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department is dismissed

ITA 257/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.257(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year:2013-14

For Appellant: Smt. Prabhjot Kaur (Ld. CIT- DR)For Respondent: None
Section 250(6)

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jalandhar vs. M/S. Hind Samachar Ltd, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department is dismissed

ITA 295/ASR/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.295(Asr)/2014 Assessment Year:2010-11

For Appellant: Smt. Prabhjot Kaur (Ld. CIT- DR)For Respondent: None
Section 250(6)

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar vs. M/S. Lakshmi Enterprises, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department is dismissed

ITA 313/ASR/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Oct 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.313(Asr)/2010 Assessment Year:2003-04

For Appellant: Smt. Prabhjot Kaur (Ld. CIT-DR)For Respondent: None
Section 250(6)

M/S. Munnilal & Dhuridevi Baid Charitable Trust, Kolkata vs. ITO (Exemption), Ward - 1(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1500/KOL/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2018AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble Vice -] I.T.A. No. 1500/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Munnilal & Dhuridevi Baid Chritable Trust.............................…………………Appellant 4, Ho Chi Minh Sarani, 2Nd Floor, Suit No. 2F, Jeevan Deep, Kolkata – 700 071. [Pan : Aaatm 7374 D] Ito (Exemption) Ward 1(4), Kolkata...................……………………………………....Respondent 10B, Middleton Row, 6Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 071. Appearances By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Duggar, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Alok Nag, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 23, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 31, 2018 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) – 25, Kolkata Dated 27.04.2018 & The Grounds Raised Therein By The Assessee Read As Under: “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law & Facts Allowing The Appeal Statistically ‘Since He Gave The Direction To The Ao To Verify The Claim Of The Appellant As Per Provisions Of Section 11 Of The Act’ Without Paying Attention To The Fact That The Order Appealed Has Been Passed Under Section 143(1) Of The Act & The Provisions Of Section 250(6) Of The Act. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law & Facts Allowing The Appeal Statistically ‘Since He Gave The Direction To The Ao To Verify The Claim Of The Appellant As Per Provisions Of Section 11 Of The Act’ Not Appreciating The Provisions Of Section 143(1) Of The Act Though Adjustments Mentioned In The Said Section Do Not Cover The Adjustment Made, Further Before Proceeding To The Said Adjustment Proviso To Section 143(1) Requiring Intimation To Be Given To Appellant Was Not Complied.”

Section 11Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(15)Section 250(6)Section 80

M/S. Om, Kolkata vs. ITO (Exemption), Ward - 1(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1499/KOL/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2018AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble Vice -] I.T.A. No. 1499/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Om.............................……………………………………………………………........................Appellant 127, Netaji Subhas Road, 4Th Floor, Room No. 407, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan : Aaato 1811 H] Ito (Exemption) Ward 1(2), Kolkata...................……………………………………...Respondent 10B, Middleton Row, 5Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 071. Appearances By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Duggar, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Alok Nag, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 23, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 31, 2018 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) – 25, Kolkata Dated 27.04.2018 & The Grounds Raised Therein By The Assessee Read As Under: “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law & Facts Allowing The Appeal Statistically ‘Since He Gave The Direction To The Ao To Verify The Claim Of The Appellant As Per Provisions Of Section 11 Of The Act’ Without Paying Attention To The Fact That The Order Appealed Has Been Passed Under Section 143(1) Of The Act & The Provisions Of Section 250(6) Of The Act. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law & Facts Allowing The Appeal Statistically ‘Since He Gave The Direction To The Ao To Verify The Claim Of The Appellant As Per Provisions Of Section 11 Of The Act’ Not Appreciating The Provisions Of Section 143(1) Of The Act Though Adjustments Mentioned In The Said Section Do Not Cover The Adjustment Made, Further Before Proceeding To The Said Adjustment Proviso To Section 143(1) Requiring Intimation To Be Given To Appellant Was Not Complied.”

Section 11Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(15)Section 250(6)Section 80

Shri Raj Shekhar Agarwal, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward - 46(1), Kolkata

ITA 1443/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

Venkatesh Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 9(2), Kolkata

ITA 776/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] M.A. No. 125/Kol/2018 (Arising Out Of I.T.A No. 776/Kol/2017 ) Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri H.V. Bhardwaj, FCAFor Respondent: Shri R. Chowdhury, Addl. CIT
Section 250(6)Section 68

Sarjit Singh Yadav, Noida vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Noida

In the result, appeal of assessee allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3455/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam
Section 250(6)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Nakodar vs. Shri Sukhdev Singh, Shahkot

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department is dismissed

ITA 182/ASR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.182(Asr)/2018 Assessment Year:2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Charan Dass (Ld.DR)For Respondent: None
Section 250(6)

The Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(4), Amritsar vs. M/S Wazir Singh Enterprises, Amritsar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department as well as Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 653/ASR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryi.T.A. No.653(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Charan Dass ( Ld. DR)For Respondent: Sh. Navendu Khanna (Ld.CA)
Section 250(6)

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Amritsar vs. M/S. Bishan Steel Industries, Amritsar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department as well as Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 590/ASR/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.590(Asr)/2014 Assessment Year:2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Charan Dass (Ld. DR)For Respondent: Sh. Tarun Bansal (Ld. Adv.)
Section 250(6)

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jalandhar vs. M/S. Hind Samachar Ltd, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department is dismissed

ITA 294/ASR/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.294(Asr)/2014 Assessment Year:2009-10

For Appellant: Smt. Prabhjot Kaur (Ld. CIT-DR)For Respondent: None
Section 250(6)

The Income Tax Officer, Katra vs. M/S Tridev Hotels Pvt. Ltd, Katra

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department as well as Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 631/ASR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.631(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year:2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Charan Dass (Ld. D.R)For Respondent: Sh. P.N.Arora (Ld. Adv.)
Section 250(6)