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)

Ilam Singh Saini Proprietor of Shiv Engineering and Consultants, Noida vs. ITO Ward-5(1)(3), Noida

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed by the Ld

ITA 3823/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishrailam Singh Saini Proprietor Of Income Tax Officer, Shiv Engineering & Ward-5(1) (3), Consultants, Vs. Noida. D-113, Sector-7, Noida-201301 Uttar Pradesh. Pan-Aoups4088L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Manish Kumar Maurya, Adv. Department By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12 /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 03.04.2024 Passed U/S 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 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 Notices Which Were Not Received & They Were Uploaded The Portal Of The Department, However, The Assessee Was Not Aware Of The Proceedings Nor Such Ilam Singh Saini Proprietor Of Shiv Engineering & Consultants Vs. Ito Notices Were Brought To His Knowledge By The Accountant Of The Assessee, Therefore, The Compliance Could Not Be Made Either Before The Ao Or Before The Cit(A). He Thus Prayed That The Matter May Be Sent Back To The File Of The Ao For Fresh Adjudication.

Section 250(6)

Chetan Jeevanrao Jadhav, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Office, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1487/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1486 & 1487/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Chetan Jeevanrao Jadhav, Vs. Ito, Nfac, Delhi. 398, D Ward, Rankala Vesh Kolhapur- 416012. Pan : Ajtpj4233E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Pramod S. Shingte : Revenue By : Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia (Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 05.12.2024 & 06.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals As Per Respective Grounds Of Appeal Common Order. 3. There Is Delay In Filing Of Both The Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Application For Condonation Of Delay Duly Supported By An Affidavit That The Applicant Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeals Within The Prescribed Time Limit. After Hearing Ld. Dr, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate Both The Appeals.

For Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia (Virtual)
Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250(6)Section 69

Chetan Jeevanrao Jadhav, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1486/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1486 & 1487/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Chetan Jeevanrao Jadhav, Vs. Ito, Nfac, Delhi. 398, D Ward, Rankala Vesh Kolhapur- 416012. Pan : Ajtpj4233E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Pramod S. Shingte : Revenue By : Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia (Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 05.12.2024 & 06.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals As Per Respective Grounds Of Appeal Common Order. 3. There Is Delay In Filing Of Both The Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Application For Condonation Of Delay Duly Supported By An Affidavit That The Applicant Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeals Within The Prescribed Time Limit. After Hearing Ld. Dr, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate Both The Appeals.

For Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia (Virtual)
Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250(6)Section 69