Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. observed that the appellate authority is bound to frame points of determination as per Section 250(6) and answer the same, by providing reasons for the same.

The petitioner had challenged an order passed by the first appellate authority rejecting his appeal against an assessment order. The appeal had been rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner failed to appear for the hearing, despite notices having been issued on four occasions.

The respondents contended that the petitioner had not produced documents to substantiate the grounds raised in the appeal and that no interference with the appellate order was warranted.

The High Court, however, found merit in the petitioner's contention. The Court noted that Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act requires the appellate authority to frame the points for determination and provide reasons for its decision. Consequently, the authority is required to deal with the grounds raised in the appeal irrespective of whether the appellant appears for the hearing.

"Even in the absence of appearance of the appellant in the appellate proceedings, the appellate authority is not empowered to dismiss the appeal on that sole ground," the Court held.

The Court found that the impugned appellate order did not undertake the required exercise of considering the grounds raised in the appeal and therefore was not in conformity with the statutory requirements under Section 250.

Accordingly, the High Court quashed the appellate order and directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to reconsider the petitioner's appeal and pass fresh orders after providing him a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Case Title: Jayan Vatahakattu Moni v Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and Anr.

Case No: WP(C) 14421/ 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 518

Counsel for Petitioner: K. Srikumar (Sr.), K. Manoj Chandran, Ammu Charles, Arundhathi K

Counsel for Respondents: Grace Tom, Jose Joseph