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)

Dipak Dadaji Khairnar, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 1, Malegaon

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

ITA 1917/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2016-17 Dipak Dadaji Khairnar Ito, Ward-1, Malegaon At Post Kotbel, Baglan, Vs. Nashik – 423204 Pan: Anipk9825E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanket Joshi (Through Virtual) Department By : Smt N C Shilpa, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 17-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18-11-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Sanket Joshi (through virtual)For Respondent: Smt N C Shilpa, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250(6)Section 69Section 69A

Shrolenson Marbaniang, Shillong, Meghalaya vs. ITO W-2 Shillong, Shillong, Meghalaya

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 225/GTY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: And Therefore Notice Issued In The Name Of The Dissolved Assessee Could Not Be Served & Hence As Ex-Parte Assessment Order As Well As Appellate Order. The Ld. Ar Also Referred To The Order Passed By Cit(A) U/S 250 Of The Act Dated 22.05.2025 & Submitted That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal In Limine Without Deciding The Issues On Merit Which Is In Violation Of Section 250(6) Of The Act. The Ld. Counsel

Section 250Section 250(6)

Shubhra Kaushik, Bilaspur vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Bilaspur

ITA 563/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 563/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Arpit Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 142Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 50C

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-(1), Raipur vs. Goenka Rockwool India Private Limited, Raipur

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

ITA 453/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.453/Rpr/2025 Co No. 18/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

Naveen Mahipal, Bikaner vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 98/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 250(6)

Karan Singh Dogra, Noida vs. Income Tax Officer, Noida

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 338/IND/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Ms. Shalini Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 250(6)

Yasir Bilal Khan Prop. Ms Khan Impex Fruit Mandi, Parimpora Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle Jammu, Srinagar

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

ITA 332/ASR/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: None
Section 131Section 144Section 250(6)Section 69

M/S R D Construction, Bhilai vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), Bhilai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 640/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.640/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. R D Construction Shikshit Nagar, Near Bus Stand, Bhilai Marshalling Yard, Charoda, Bhilai-490 025 (C.G.) Pan: Aajfr3698E

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(1)

Khandelwal Industries, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Dhamtari, Dhamtari

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 551/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.551/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Khandelwal Industries Industrial Area, Dhamtari Chhattisgarh-493 773 Pan: Aaqfk4740D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-Dhamtari (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 68

Kulathumkuzhiyil Muhammed Ashraf, Kottayam vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Kottayam, Kottayam

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

ITA 622/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Years: 2018-19 Kulathumkuzhiyil Muhammed Ashraf .......... Appellant Kulathumkuzhiyil, Velloor, Kottayam 686501 [Pan: Bzvpa6849J] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-2, Kottayam .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Prashanth Srinivas, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 23.06.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual. No Regular Return Of Income Under The Provisions Of Section 139(1) Of The Act Was Filed For Ay 2018-19. Based On The Information That The Appellant Received Interest Income From United India Insurance Company Ltd. Or Rs. 29,03,429/- During The Previous Year Relevant To Assessment Year Under Consideration, The Ao Formed An Opinion That Income Escaped Assessment To Tax. Accordingly, A Notice U/S. 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Was Issued On 2 Kulathumkuzhiyil Muhammed Ashraf 31.03.2022. The Appellant Neither Complied With The Notice U/S. 148 Nor U/S. 142(1) Of The Act Issued By The Ao Calling For Certain Information. In The Circumstances, The Ao Was Constrained To Pass Best Judgement Assessment By Bringing To Tax The Interest Income Of Rs. 29,03,429/- As Unexplained Money Of The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250(6)

Chadralop Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Aurangabad vs. Exemption Ward, Aurangabad, Maharashtra

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for

ITA 778/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vijay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S Pathak, ARFor Respondent: Shri Uodol Raj Singh, DR
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

Jagdish Dattatrya Aradhye, Latur vs. ITO Wrad, Latur

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

ITA 1047/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vijay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Uodol Raj Singh, DR
Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)

Swapnil Prabhakar Naik, Khandola Marcela vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) Panaji, Panaji

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 121/PAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Vinesh Pikale [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(1)Section 5ASection 68

Vishal Associates, Kanpur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(4), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 641/LKW/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 40A(3)

Ramesh Seth, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 45(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 4782/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

Smt. Kanta Shroff, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 28(1), New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

ITA 3851/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishrasmt. Kanta Shroff, Acit, B-25/3, Okhla Industrial Estate Circle-28(1), Phase-Ii, New Delhi. Vs. New Delhi. Pan-Aaops1059H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Nitin Gulati, Adv. Department By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/11/2025 O R D E R Per Sudhir Pareek, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [‘Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Dated 20.05.2025 Passed U/S 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. At The Outset, It Is Seen That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Dismissed By The Ld. Cit(A) For Non-Prosecution. Before Us, The Ld. Ar Submitted That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Issued Several Notices Which Were Not Received & They Were Uploaded The Portal Of The Department, However, The Appellant Was Not Aware Of The Proceedings Nor Such Notices Were Brought To His Knowledge By The Accountant Of The Appellant, Therefore, The Compliance Could Not Be Made Either Before The Learned Ao Or Before Smt. Kanta Shroff Vs. Acit The Cit(A) & Accordingly Prayed That The Matter May Be Sent Back To The File Of The Learned Ao For Fresh Adjudication.

Section 250(6)

Yuga Printpack Private Limited vs. ITO Ward-2(3), Fbd

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

ITA 3849/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

Section 250(6)

Kripa Shanker, Patna vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1), Patna

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

ITA 117/PAT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 54

Ramesh Kondiba Patil, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5(2), Pune

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

ITA 2065/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2065/Pun/2025 Assessment Year 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar
Section 147Section 250(6)

Arjunsinh Madansinh Mohite Patil, Solapur vs. CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the two assessee(s) are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1624/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1620 To 1622 & 1624/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18

For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 147Section 250(6)