“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)

Sonali Mahendra Naik Gaunekar, Panaji vs. Asst. Unit, NFAC, I. T. Department, Delhi

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 312/PAN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji27 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Mr Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Naveen Kumar [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253(1)Section 263Section 50CSection 50C(1)

statute or from any binding judicial precedent. Au contraire, when dealing with the appeal filed u/s 246A of the Act, the provisions of section 251(1)(a) of the Act mandates the Ld. NFAC to cease the first appeal conclusively either ‘confirming or reducing or enhancing or annulling’ the assessment ... dismissal to void multiplicity of litigation finds no merits and much less sanction from the statute, therefore has suffered from the provisions of section 251(1) and 250(6) of the Act. For the reason, we set-aside the impugned proceeding and the impugned order for its remand

Shri Jyoti Multipurpose Souhard Sahakari Sangh Nyt Examba, Examba, Chikodi, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Nippani, Belagavi

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 172/PAN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji27 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2022-23 Shri Jyoti Multipurpose Souharda Sangh Niyamit Examba, Chikodi, Belgavi-591244 Pan:Aabas2730D . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Shivanand Halbhavi [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ish Gupta [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 144Section 250Section 251Section 251(1)Section 253(1)

without going into the merits. However, while doing so, the Ld. NFAC in our considered view lost sight to the amended provision of section 251(1) of the Act. ITAT-Panaji Page 3 of 5 Shri Jyoti Multipurpose Souharda Sangh Niyamit Vs. ITO ITA No.172/PAN/2025 ... present case the assessment assailed before the Ld. NFAC was framed u/s 144 of the Act, therefore in view of the proviso to section 251(1) of the Act, the Ld. NFAC was under mandate to set-aside the assessment order for remand to the Ld. AO for de- novo

Birju Kumar, Vaishali vs. ITO, Ward- 1 (3), Vaishali

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

ITA 333/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna27 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 144Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

that the learned NFAC has erred in the facts and circumstances of the case in not resorting to the newly inserted section 251(1)(a) of the Act by not remanding back the matter to the assessing officer, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified. ITA No.: 333/PAT/2025 Assessment Year ... Although the ld. CIT(A) had the power to remand the matter to the AO in view of the newly inserted amendment of section 251(1)(a) of the Act, however, the addition was confirmed. The ld. AO also did not allow adequate opportunity and the assessee has the required

Bipin Jashvantlal Desai, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 1030/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalbipin Jashvantlal Desai Income Tax Officer, Vs. 7, Nandanvan Bunglows, Ward-1(2)(1) Nr Shivganesh Bungalows, Ahmedabad Hebatpur Road, Thaltej, Ahmedabad-380059

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR

Section 251(1)(a)

reproduced as under: “…in the present case, the CIT(A) has set aside the appeal to the file of AO as per Section 251(1)(a) of the Act for denovo adjudication. Pursuant to same, AO initiated proceedings (Relevant notices are attached herewith) and accordingly, appellant prays for withdrawal

Sachin Prakashchand Aanchaliya, Aurangabad vs. ITO Ward 1 (1), Aurangabad

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

ITA 2345/PUN/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Nov 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 250(4)

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 issues which arise

Sahara Welfare Foundation, Kolkata vs. DCIT (Exemptions), Circle - 1, Kolkata

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

ITA 1492/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 164(2)Section 1l

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT

Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Department, Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 1 and 2 are remanded back to the Jurisdictional Assessing

ITA 5548/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 115Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 250Section 68Section 80G

unless the assessment order is passed u/s. 144 of the Act being the best judgement assessment vide proviso to Section 251(1)(a) by Finance Act 2024, which allows the ld. CIT(A) to set aside an ex parte assessment made u/s. 144 of the Act for the purpose

Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Limted, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 7(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 1 and 2 are remanded back to the Jurisdictional Assessing

ITA 5543/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 115Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 250Section 68Section 80G

Lucknow Educational and Social Welfare Society, Lucknow vs. Assessment Unit, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 314/LKW/2025[2020-21]Status: FixedITAT Lucknow20 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Shri Brahma Prakash Singh, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 94, Vaishali Enclave, Sector-9, Indira Income Tax-2, Lucknow Nagar, Lucknow Pan: Ajmps4451L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Dharmendra Kumar, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.11.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pcit-2, Lucknow Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act On 14.03.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. That Revision Proceeding Initiated U/S 263 Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 By Learned Pr. Cit-2. Lucknow Is Illegal & Without Jurisdiction. 2. That Since Assessment Order Passed By The Ao Was Not Erroneous In So Far As It Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Revenue, Hence Revision Order Passed By Ld. Pr. Cit-2, Lucknow Is Illegal & Without Jurisdiction. 3. That Ld.Ao Had Examined The Issue & After Being Satisfied By The Documentary Evidences & Explanations Furnished By Appellant, Passed Assessment Order, Hence Revision Order, Cancelling The Assessment Order Is Illegal & Without Jurisdiction. 4. That Where An Order Passed By Ao Is Subject To An Appeal That Had Been Filed, Then Commissioner Cannot Invoke Power Under Section 263 In Such Matters, Which Are Agitated In Such Appeal. Since Issue Under Appeal Before Commissioner (Appeals) & Revision Order Passed Under Section 263 Is Same, Hence, Revision Order Passed By Commissioner Is Illegal & Without Jurisdiction. 5. That The Appellant Seeks Permission To Modify And/Or Add Any Other Ground Or Grounds Of Appeal As The Circumstances Of The Case Might Require Or Justify.”

For Appellant: Sh. Dharmendra Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR

Section 133(6)Section 148Section 263

cause notice on 22.01.2018 for the AO having accepted the assessee’s investments to the extent of Rs. 49,73,513/-. However, under section 251(1)(a), it was the CIT(A) who had the powers against an order of assessment to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment. Therefore ... Assessing 8 Shri. Brahma Prakash Singh A.Y. 2012-13 Officer was in appeal before ld. CIT(A) and as per the provisions of section 251(1)(a) of the Act, the Commissioner (Appeals) had the powers in an appeal against an order of assessment to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul

Shahbaz Mohammed Shafeeque, Malegaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Malegaon

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

ITA 2291/PUN/2025[2015 - 16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Nov 2025

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2291/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shahbaz Mohammed V The Income Tax Officer, Shafeeque, S. Ward-1, Malegaon. House No.904, Lane No.2, Malegaon City S.O., Malegaon, Nashik, Malegaon – 423203. Maharashtra. Pan: Cfppm6844A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi (Virtual) Revenue By Smt Saumya Pandey Jain-Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: In This Case, Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commisioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2015-16 Dated 28.02.2025. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

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 5 that while disposing of appeal the CIT(A) would have the power to ITA No.2291/PUN/2025 ... 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 issues which arise

Sachin Shantilal Khiwansara, Beed vs. Income Tax Officer, Aurangabad

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

ITA 2288/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2288/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sachin Shantilal Khiwansara, V The Income Tax Officer, Main Road, Shirur Kasar, S. Ward-1(5), Aurangabad. Shirur So., Beed, Beed – 413249. Pan: Bytpk1339N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Saurabh D.Khivansara Revenue By Smt Saumya Pandey Jain-Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: In This Case, Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commisioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17 Dated 17.07.2025. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. That On Facts & In Law, The Ex-Parte Order Of Ld. Cit Appeals, Nfac Is Opposed To Law & Against The Principles Of Natural Justice & Accordingly The Impugned Appellate Order Is Liable To Be Set Aside.

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

Ashok Rudraraju, Visakhapatnam vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 439/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 439/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Ashok Rudraraju, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-2(5), Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aqvpr4058L

For Appellant: Shri I. Kama Sastry, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 151(1)Section 151ASection 251(1)(a)Section 69A

Centre is not justified in remanding the case back to the Assessing Officer for redoing the assessment de novo invoking the proviso to section 251(1)(a) which is not at all applicable to the facts of the case. 2. The notice issued under section 148 dated 27.07.2022 is barred ... r.w.s 144 of the Act, dated 15/05/2022, took recourse to the powers that were vested with him under the newly inserted “proviso” to section 251(1)(a) of the Act, w.e.f 01/10/2024 and set aside the matter to the file of the AO for making fresh assessment after taking into

M/S. Shroff Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1017/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2025AY 2015-2016

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 251(1)(a)Section 69A

granted only two working days time to respond to notice dated 18.04.2023. Accordingly, the CIT(A), relying on the newly inserted proviso to Section 251(1)(a) of the Act (effective from 1 October 2024), exercised his power to set aside the ex parte assessment and restore the matter ... perused the record. The learned DR supported the order of the CIT(A), submitting that the CIT(A) rightly exercised power under Section 251(1)(a) (inserted by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024 w.e.f. 1-10-2024), which empowers the CIT(A) to set aside an ex parte assessment framed

M/S. Shroff Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1016/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 251(1)(a)Section 69A

Gaurava Mishra, Raipur vs. ITO, Ward 3(2)(8), Surat

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

ITA 104/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.104/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Gaurav Mishra, Vs. Ito, Present Address: - Ward -3 (2)(8), 80, Bayshore Road, Unit No.28, Surat (Costa Del Sol), Singapore – 46992 Permanent Address: 605, Spathik Shilla, Sundar Nagar Purani Basti, So Raipur – 492001, C.G., India "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Amkpm6042J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Veekass Sharma, Ar Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

Section 127Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 250

notices for fixing the date of hearing on 16.08.2023 and 30.09.2024, but the assessee sought adjournment on both occasions. 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

New Mangalore Port Road Company Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), Delhi

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

ITA 1053/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.1053/Del/2025, A.Y. 2015-16 New Mangalore Port Road Deputy Commissioner Of Company Limited, Income Tax, Circle-16(1), D-21, Corporate Park, Vs. C. R. Building, I P Estate, Sector-21, Dwarka, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabcn9106E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Khushboo Singhal, Ca Respondent By Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 21/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2015-16 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.09.2022 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

Section 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 36(1)(iii)

from the impugned order that the Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated each ground of appeal raised before him though in view of section 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) and Explanation of section 251(2) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) is required to apply his/her mind

14 Reels Venkatboyanapalli Jv, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal is dismissed for non-

ITA 969/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.617 & 969/Hyd./2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years 2018-2019 & 2017-2018

For Appellant: Mrs. K Prabhabati, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad 'B' Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

14 Reels Venkatboyanapalli Jv, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 617/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.617 & 969/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years 2018-2019 & 2017-2018 14 Reels The Dcit, Central Venkatboyanapalli Jv, Circle-1(3), Hyderabad. Vs. Hyderabad – 500 033. Pin – 500 004. Pan Aaaaz2224L Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा /Assessee By : Mrs. K Prabhabati, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12.11.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Learned Cit(A), Hyderabad- 11, Hyderabad, Dated 08.02.2025 & 13.03.2025 For The Assessment Years 2018-2019 & 2017-2018, Respectively.

For Appellant: Mrs. K Prabhabati, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 250

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 Commissioner (Appeals) would have the power to confirm, reduce, enhance ... Commissioner (Appeals) to 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 Commissioner (Appeals) to apply his mind

Navdurga Transport Company, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Hyderabad

Appeal is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 219/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 251(1)(a)Section 69A

firm w.e.f 01/01/2002 as a running concern and continued the same as such, thus, in exercise of the powers vested with him under section 251(1)(a) of the Act, introduced with effect from 01/10/2024, set aside the matter to the file of the AO with a direction to decide ... after taking cognizance of the aforesaid contention of the assessee firm, had in exercise of the powers vested with him under section 251(1)(a) of the Act, set aside the matter to the file of the AO with a direction to verify the aforesaid claim of the assessee firm

Navdurga Transport Company, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Hyderabad

Appeal is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 218/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 251(1)(a)Section 69A