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)

Lokesh Goyal, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Jodhpur

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 155/JODH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur16 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)Section 68

Shyamjikrushna Varma Township, Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward 2 (1) (1) Rajkot, Rajkot

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

ITA 264/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot16 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-DR
Section 147Section 250Section 46A

Vinodbhai Ravjibhai Sakhiya, Rajkot vs. ITO, Ward-1(2)(2), Rajkot

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 182/RJT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot16 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.182/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2011-12 Vinod Ravjibhai Sakhiya, Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ Shivam, 4-Radha Nagar, B/H. Ward-1(2)(2), Rajkot, Aayakar Vs Laxmi Nagar, Rajkot-360 004 Bhavan, Race Course, Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Blqps 0262 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-DR
Section 144Section 250

Bindhumol Chandran Pillai Chandralayam, Alappuzha vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & Tps, Alappuzha

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 215/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

Eram Technologies Private Limited, Trivandrum vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1), Trivandrum

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 946/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

Mahebub Samsuddin Panjwani, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 261/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.261/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Shri Mahebub Samsuddin Vs. Dy.Cit Panjwani, Hyderabad Circle 8(1) Pan:Aiqpp2937D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Ravi Gupta, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/05/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated, 25/10/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Y.2020-21. 2. There Is A Delay Of 49 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Which Is Supported By An Affidavit By The Assessee Explaining The Cause Of The Delay.

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Gupta, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, DR
Section 144

Ebro India Private Limited, Delhi vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 797/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Ms. Shivangi Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 250(6)

Crown Technobuild Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 6(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 775/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareekasstt. Year : 2015-16 Crown Techno Build Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward-6(4), 2Nd Floor, E-3/B1, Mohan Cooperative New Delhi Industrial Estate, New Delhi – 44 (Pan: Aadcc0686L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. V.K. Sabharwal, Adv. & Sh. Rajiv Kumar, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Sh. V.K. Sabharwal, Adv. & Sh. RajivFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 24

Pravinbhai Karshanbhai Rathod, Junagadh vs. ITO, Ward-1, Junagadh

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 289/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 May 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-DR
Section 144Section 250

Kirti Shantilal Solanki, Una-Dist. Gir Somnath vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4, Jnd-Veraval

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

ITA 100/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.100/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2017-18 Kirti Shantilal Solanki Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ Prop. Of M/S Navinchanda & Ward-4, Jnd, Veraval, Vs Co. Main Bazar, Library Yogeshwar Bhavan, Opp. S.T. Chowk, Una Dist. Gir Bus Stand, Veraval-362 265 Somnath-362 560 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bscps 8298 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri R.D. Lalchandani, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 14/05/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15/05/2025 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Dated 17.12.2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 144 Of The Act, On 19.12.2019. 2. At The Outset Itself, Shri R.D. Lalchandani, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Assailed The Impugned Order By Contending That The Assessee Could Not Represent His Case Before Ld. Cit(A) & The Order Being An Ex-Parte Order, Stood Vitiated On Account Of Violation Of Principle Of Natural Justice. Shri R.D.

For Appellant: Shri R.D. Lalchandani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Sr-DR
Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)

Pandurang Maruti Abhang, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 5(4), Pune

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

ITA 844/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.844/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Pandurang Maruti Abhang, V The Income Tax Officer, Flat No.203, Narayan Bag S Ward-5(4), Pune. Society, Lane No.8, Shiv Nagar, Kirkatwadi, Sinhagad Road, Pune – 411024. Maharashtra. Pan: Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Himanshu Choudhary – Ar Revenue By Shri Madhan Thirmanpallil – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 29.01.2025 For Assessment Year2019-20. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 250oSection 251Section 251(1)(a)

Payal Sanjay Soni, Pune vs. ITO Ward 6(3), Pune

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

ITA 799/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.799/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Payal Sanjay Soni, V The Income Tax Officer, Flat No.B12, Satyam Co-Op S Ward-6(3), Pune. Hsg Soc, Opp Gavkosh Maruti Mandir, 1452 Kasba Peth, Pune – 411002. Maharashtra. Pan: Bncps5773C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pratik Sandbhor – Ar (Virtual Hearing) Revenue By Shri Madhan Thirmanpalli – Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 14/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 13.01.2025 For Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 250Section 694Section 69A

Yogesh Durgadas Phal, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 3(2), Pune

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

ITA 436/PUN/2025[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 May 2025

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.436/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr.Yogesh Durgadas Phal, V The Income Tax Officer, 309/33 Gokhale Nagar, Shivaji S Ward-3(2), Pune. Nagar, Opp.Patrakar Nagar, Haweli, Pune – 411016. Maharashtra. Pan: Abjpp1640F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sailee Gujarathi – Ca Revenue By Shri Madhan Thirmanpalli – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 14/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 29.11.2023 For Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 234ASection 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 69A

Paschim Nawpara Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Limited, Nadia vs. ITO, Ward - 41(3), Nadia

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 39/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.39/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Paschim Nawpara Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Limited...….……….Appellant Nawpara, Noapara B.O. Paschim Noapara, Nadia, 741255, W.B. [Pan: Aadap3765F] Vs. Ito, Ward-41(3), Nadia…………….....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri P. K. Ray, R.C. Halder & Trideep Nayak, Advocates, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Archana Gupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 24.01.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 282 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Submitted An Application For Condonation Of Such Delay Explaining Reasons For The Delay. We, After Perusing The Petition Made In The Application, Satisfy That There Are Bona Fide & Sufficient Reasons For Such Delay. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay & Admit This Appeal For Adjudication. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessing Officer Received Information Regarding Cash Deposits Made By The Assessee During The Period Of Demonetization I.E. From 09.11.2016 To 31.12.2016 Amounting To Rs.2,46,000/- & Rs.8,48,500/- Maintained With Nadia District Central Co-Op Bank Ltd., Ranaghat Branch, Nadia & Rs.2,19,500/-

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271ASection 69A

Lakhmi Chand Mukesh Kumar, Bahadurgarh vs. Ward 2, Rohtak

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1135/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 1135/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Lakhmi Chand Mukesh Kumar, Vs Income Tax Officer, Shop No. 26, Anaj Mandi, Ward-2, Bahadurgarh, Rohtak, Haryana-124507 Haryana-124001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacfl1261C Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Yogeshwar Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2025 Order

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

Shambhu Dayal Modern School, Haryana vs. ITO(Exemption) Rohtak, Rohtak

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1126/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 1126/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Shambhu Dayal Modern School, Vs Income Tax Officer(Exemption) Gohana Road, Haryana-131001 Rohtak, Haryana-124001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabts9199M Assessee By : Ms. Sakshi Rustagi, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Yogeshwar Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2025 Order

For Appellant: Ms. Sakshi Rustagi, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Yogeshwar Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 250(6)

Subhash Chander & Sons (HUF), Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Rohtak, Haryana

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1117/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 1117/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Subhash Chander & Sons (Huf), Vs Income Tax Officer, 962/20, Shakti Nagar, Ward-2, Rohtak, Haryana-1241001 Rohtak, Haryana-124001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aauhs9666L Assessee By : Sh. Somil Aggarwal, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Yogeshwar Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2025 Order

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Aggarwal, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Yogeshwar Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250(6)

Atul Bansal, Indore vs. Additiona, Join, Deputy, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Officer NFAC Delhi, National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 704/IND/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 May 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 44ASection 69A

Mansi Didwania, Lucknow vs. D/ACIT-3, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 450/LKW/2024[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Lucknow14 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshramansi Didwania Dcit/Acit-3 V. 112/16, Shri Ram Road, Lucknow-New/Nfac Aminabad, Lucknow, U.P.- Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 226018. Ram Trith Marg, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Aeupd8333B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P.K. Kapoor, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 05 05 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 14 05 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl
Section 147Section 151Section 153CSection 250Section 68Section 69Section 69C

Jagdish Chand, Mandi Gobindgarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Mandi Gobindgarh

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

ITA 884/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate for Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr DR
Section 143(3)Section 250