“Section 251(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 251Section 251(1)929 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 251(1) is Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (187 ITR 688), cited in 1,372 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 251(1)

Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT

187 ITR 688 · 1991 · Supreme Court

1,372

citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) possesses co-terminus powers with the Assessing Officer and can direct the Assessing Officer to perform actions he failed to do, but cannot introduce a new source of income in the assessment. The appellate assessment must be confined to the items of income that were the subject matter of the original assessment.

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.

CIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry

44 ITR 891 · 1962 · Supreme Court

278

citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cannot enhance an assessment by introducing a new source of income or by changing the head of income during appellate proceedings.

Skycell Communications Ltd. v. DCIT

251 ITR 53 · 2001 · High Court

253

citing judgments

Technical services involve human intervention and expertise, not just routine or machine-based operations. Routine customer support and standard facility provision through technology do not constitute technical services under the Act.

CIT v. Sardari Lal & Co.

251 ITR 864 · 2001 · High Court

240

citing judgments

An appellate authority cannot introduce a new source of income that was not considered by the Assessing Officer; taxability of new sources should be addressed through reassessment provisions like Section 147/148 or revision under Section 263.

CIT v. Claris Lifesciences Ltd.

326 ITR 251 · 2010 · High Court

196

citing judgments

If approval from the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) for an in-house R&D centre is granted during the previous year, the assessee is entitled to claim weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) for the entire expenditure incurred during that year.

Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT

231 ITR 1 · 1998 · High Court

186

citing judgments

The first appellate authority must admit additional evidence if it is necessary for determining the true state of affairs and preventing undue hardship or a failure of justice, even without a specific request and particularly when the case falls under Rule 46A(1)(c).

Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT

266 ITR 99 · 2004 · Supreme Court

181

citing judgments

The Revenue cannot take a conflicting stand from what it had earlier accepted in a previous assessment year without compelling justification. This principle of consistency applies to various issues, including the treatment of customs duty in closing inventory.

Judgments citing Section 251(1)

Shri Ganadhipati Gandharacharya Kuntiusagar Vidya Sodh Sonstha, Kolhapur vs. ITO, Exemption, Pune, Kolhapur

ITA 2025/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale

still when the issue came before Id. CIT(A) who also possesses co-terminus power with that of A.O and as per section 251(1)(a) of the Act. the Id. CIT(A) in disposing the appeal against order of assessment has the power to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul

Shri Ganadhipati Gandharacharya Kuntiusagar Vidya Sodh Sonstha, Kolhapur vs. ITO, Exemption, Pune, Kolhapur

ITA 2024/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale

Shri Ganadhipati Gandharacharya Kuntiusagar Vidya Sodh Sonstha, Pune vs. ITO, Exemption, Pune

ITA 2023/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale

Pankaj Manohar Pardhi, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 42(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6591/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Prusethassessment Year: 2016-17 Pankaj Manohar Pardhi, Income Tax Officer, B-502, Yash Paradise, Sector 8, Vs. Ward 42 (3)(1), Airoli, Navi Mumbai-400708. Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai - 400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.12.2023, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2016-17. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That There Is Delay Of 168 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal, On Which The Assessee By Filing A Duly Sworn Affidavit Dated 13-09-2025 Has Claimed That The Assessee Has Shifted To Dubai & Thus For The Last Many Years Is Not Residing In India. However, During The Recent Trip In India, The Assessee Became Aware About The Ongoing Appeal Proceedings & Passing Of The Impugned Order & Therefore, The Delay Of 168 Days Has Been Occurred, Which Was Neither Intentional Nor Mala-Fide But Because Of The Aforesaid Reasons.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Ld. SR. D.R

Section 14Section 147Section 250Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 69

terminous with that of the Assessing Officer i.e. he can do all that Assessing Officer could do. This is amply clear from the Section 251(1)(a) and (b) and Explanation to Section 251 (2) of the Act which requires the CIT(A) to apply his mind

National Institute of Construction Management and Research, Mumbai vs. DCIT(Exemptions), Circle-2, Mumbai

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

ITA 5987/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailnational Institute Of Construction Management & Research, Walchand Centre, Walchand Terraces, Tardeo Road, Ac Market ............... Appellant Mumbai – 400034 Pan : Aaatn1348J V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle - 2, ……………… Respondent Cumbala Hill, Telephone Exchange, Peddar Road, Mumbai - 400026

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram, CIT-DR

Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(5)Section 143(3)Section 144B(1)(xii)Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution when Section 251(1)(a) and (b) and Explanation to Section 251(2) of the Act categorically require the CIT(A) to apply his mind to all the issues

The Kanaka Mahalakshmi Co Operative Bank Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam

ITA 584/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.584/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) The Kanaka Mahalakshmi Vs. Dcit/Acit, Cooperative Bank Limited, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aacft6489J (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.572/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Acit, Vs. The Kanaka Mahalakshmi Cooperative Bank Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aacft6489J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ms. K. Chudamani, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Shahnawaz Ul Rahman, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 26/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 05/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm: The Captioned Cross-Appeals Filed By The Assessee Firm/Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income

For Appellant: Ms. K. Chudamani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shahnawaz UL Rahman

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

order of the assessment completed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, in contravention to the provisions of section 251(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the assessment was not made u/s.144 ... r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 24/05/2023. Elaborating on his contention, the Ld. CIT-DR vehemently submitted that though the “first proviso” to section 251(1)(a) of the Act as had been made available on the statute vide Finance (No.2) Act, 2024 w.e.f 01/10/2024, vests jurisdiction with

Dasari Sai Annapurna L/R of Late Dasari Gopi Krishna Reddy, Vijayawada vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Vijayawada

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 583/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.583/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2015-16) Dasari Sai Annapurna Vs. Assistant Commissioner L/R Of Late Dasari Gopi Of Income Tax, Krishna Reddy, Central Circle-2(1), Vijayawada. Vijayawada. Pan: Aeipd0990C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Mv Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 27/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 05/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 08/07/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”), Dated 28/03/2022, For The Assessment Year 2015-16. The 2 Dasai Sai Annapurna L/R Of Late Dasari Gopi Krishna Reddy Vs. Acit

For Appellant: Shri MV Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 45Section 54F

carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) who in exercise of the powers vested with him under the “first proviso” of section 251(1)(a) of the Act, after taking cognizance of the 6 Dasai Sai Annapurna L/R of Late Dasari Gopi Krishna Reddy vs. ACIT fact that ... same. Assessment was accordingly made u/s 147 r.w.s 144/144B of the Act in this case. In view of this, invoking the provisions of section 251(1)(a) of the Act, the assessment order dated 28/03/2022 passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144/144B of the Income

Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam vs. The Kanaka Mahalakshmi Co Operative Bank Ltd, Visakhapatnam

ITA 572/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. K. Chudamani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shahnawaz UL Rahman

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

Mithapur Nutan Bal Shikshan Sangh, Mithapur vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward (1), Dwarka

In the result, the above penalty appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 786/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 783 To 786/Rjt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Mithapur Nutan Bal Shikshan Vs. The Ito, Ward-1, Sangh. Dwarka Sangh Bal Mandir Zanda Chowk, Mithapur-361345 (Guj) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaam0815C (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 270ASection 271A

wherein the ld. CIT(A) in the quantum proceedings held as follows: “5.4 In accordance with the proviso to Section 251(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessment order under appeal is hereby set aside. The Assessing Officer is directed to frame a fresh assessment after providing

Mithapur Nutan Bal Shikshan Sangh, Mithapur vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward (1), Dwarka

In the result, the above penalty appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 785/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 270ASection 271A

Mithapur Nutan Bal Shikshan Sangh, Mithapur vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward (1), Dwarka

In the result, the above penalty appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 784/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 270ASection 271A

Mithapur Nutan Bal Shikshan Sangh, Mithapur vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward (1), Dwarka

In the result, the above penalty appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 783/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 270ASection 271A

Vanmalibhai Muljibhai Patel L/H Ranjanben Deepakbhai Patel, Na vs. Arivs.ITO, Ward 5, Navsari

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

ITA 345/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.345/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Vanmalibhai Muljibhai Patel, Vs. Ito, L/H Of Ranjanben Deepakbhai Patel Ward - 5, 16, Shrinikunj Society, Ashabaug, Navsari Navsari - 396445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abjpp3114G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca Respondent By Ms. Jayshree Thakur, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

Section 127Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)

given to the assessee, but he failed to file any documentary evidences as well as prove source of cash deposits. He referred to section 251(1) of the Act wherein it is stipulated that in cases where an order was passed as a ‘best judgment’ assessment

Canara Bank (E-Syndicate) Bandra West II Branch, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal under consideration are allowed

ITA 6312/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Ms. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan & Mrs. Lalitha Rameswaran, Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 133Section 201(1)Section 250

judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Premkumar Arjunda(2107) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay), wherein it has been held as under :- “Section 251(1)(a) and (b), along with the explanation in Section 251(2) of the Act, mandates that the CIT(A) must apply their mind

Canara Bank (E-Syndicate) Bandra West II Branch, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal under consideration are allowed

ITA 6310/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Ms. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan & Mrs. Lalitha Rameswaran, Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 133Section 201(1)Section 250

Our Vision Entertainment LLP, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 24(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4724/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Ms. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Our Vision Entertainment Income Tax Officer Llp, 15(1)(1), Office No.304, Twin Complex B 103, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Block, Andheri East Mumbai - 400020 Opp Marol Fire Brigade Maharashtra - 400 059 Pan: Aaefo8646C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 250

Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Premkumar Arjunda (2107) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay), wherein it has been held as under: - “Section 251(1)(a) and (b), along with the explanation in Section 251(2) of the Act, mandates that the CIT(A) must apply their mind to all issues arising

Girish Sanu, Mangaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Mangaluru

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

ITA 804/BANG/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250

therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play as well as in view of the amendment to section 251(1)(a) of the Act, restored back the matter to the file of AO for fresh consideration as per law after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee

Shrimadurjit Seva Kendra, Pune vs. The ITO, Ward 8(3), Pune

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

ITA 2276/PUN/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2276/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shrimadurjit Seva Kendra, V The Income Tax Officer, S.No.117/1, Chowisawdi, S. Ward-8(3), Pune. Haveli, Pune – 412105. Pan: Absfs4340L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Amit Bobde –Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: In This Case, Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Additional/Joint Commisioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Panaji Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2013-14 Dated 31.07.2025. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Addl./Jt.Cit(A), Panaji Erred In Law & On Facts In Dismissing Appellant'S Appeal Without Granting Sufficient Opportunity Of Being Heard. Appellant Assures To Make All The Compliances Before The

Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234ESection 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

stating the points for determination and then render a decision on each of the points which arise for consideration with reasons in support. Section 251(1)(a) and (b) of the Act provide that while disposing of appeal the CIT(A) would have the power to confirm, reduce, enhance ... dismiss the appeal on account of non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee. This is amply clear from the Section 251(1)(a) and (b) and Explanation to Section 251(2) of the Act which requires the CIT(A) to apply his mind to all the 4 issues which

Savita Mitkari, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Pune

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

ITA 2193/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2193/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Savita Mitkari, V The Income Tax Officer, Flat No.302, G4, Gangadham S Pmt Phase Ii, Market Yard, Building Pune 411037. Commercial Complex, Swargate, Pune 411037. Pan: Arppm8052L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Ca Sagar Kale Shri Arvind Renge – Addl.Cit(Dr) Revenue By Date Of Hearing 06/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal) [Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2011-12 Dated 30.07.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Act, Dated 30.12.2018. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jammu vs. Sh. Taahooo Ahmed Bazaz, Srinagar

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 346/ASR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 346/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Asstt. Cit, Vs. Sh. Taahooo Ahmed Jammu. Bazaz, Lala Building Old Secretariat Road, Tile Bazaz Shaheed Gunj, Srinagr, Srinagar. [Pan:-Atupb5595L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr None Respondent By Date Of Hearing 16.10.2025 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 251(1)(a)

filed before the AO in course of assessment proceedings and the orders has been passed ex parte and invoking the amended provision of section 251(1)(a) of the Act, the matter was set aside back to the files of the AO for fresh assessment after providing opportunity of hearing