“Section 251(1)(a)”

Section References (mined)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)1,012 judgments

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

Leading authorities on Section 251(1)(a)

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)(a)

Sanjay Mohanbhai Molia, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Rajkot

ITA 595/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Adjournment Application

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, राजकोटन्यायपीठ, राजकोट । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC” RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI

Susanta Mallick, Kalikapur vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1764/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Oct 2025AY 2015-2016

Section 10(38)Section 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 that while disposing of appeal the CIT(A) would have the power to confirm, reduce, enhance

M/S. Raktikanta Panda Niranjan Panda, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-22(4), Chennai

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

ITA 1781/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1781/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Raktikanta Panda Niranjan Panda, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. B, 301, Block B, Tvs Emerald Non Corporate Ward 22(4), Green Hills, No. 345/2B, Tambaram. Nedungundram, Ngo Nagar, Alapakkam, Perungalathur, Chennai 600 063. [Pan:Adjpn9359H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. M. Mohan Babu, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10.06.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 293 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons.

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Dr. M. Mohan Babu, Addl. CIT

Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

that the ld. CIT(A) erred in law in enhancing the cash deposit suo motu without providing proper opportunity of being heard under section 251(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. He argued vehemently that the enhancement is not at all maintainable

Jain Textile Industries, Gurgaon vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed as devoid of

ITA 932/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Jain Textile Industries, V Assistant Commissioner Of 38, Milestone, Behrampur S Income Tax, Circle-1(1) Road, Village Khandsa, Hsiiddc Building, 4Th Floor, Gurgaon, Haryana Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon Pan: Aabfj8405F Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Bhupender Jit Kumar, Adv, Sh. Nikhil Sharma, Adv & Sh. Tushar Kalra, Adv Revenue By Sh. Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/10/2025

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 251(1)(a)

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restoring the matter back to the AO under section 251(1)(a) of the Act even when the AO has not made any best judgement assessment under section 144 of the Act in the case

Ashutosh Deshpande, Nagpur vs. ACIT/DCIT Circle -5, Nagpur

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

ITA 493/NAG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleashutosh Sudhakar Deshpande, Plot No.5, Gandhi Nagar, Nagpur 440 010, ……………. Appellant Maharashtra. Pan–Aavpd0098E V/S Acit Circle–5, ……………. Respondent Nagpur-440006, Maharashtra. Assessee By: Shri.Ashutosh Sudhakar Despande. Revenue By : Shri.Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri.Ashutosh Sudhakar DespandeFor Respondent: Shri.Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR

Section 251(1)(a)Section 69A

instead of dismissing the appeal without appreciating the facts & circumstances correct, he could have set aside the case as per provision of section 251(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Without prejudice to above the assessment framed by the Ld. ACIT/DCIT is in violation of CBDT Instruction

Kausalya Agro Farms Amd Developers Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our above findings

ITA 804/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 251(1)(a)Section 36(1)(iii)

said assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), invoking powers under the proviso to section 251(1)(a) of the Act, set aside the entire assessment to the file of the Ld. AO with a direction to complete the assessment ... assessment was completed under section 144 of the Act and, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) was fully empowered under the proviso to section 251(1)(a) to set aside the entire assessment for de novo adjudication. Accordingly, there is no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) and prayed

Assystem Engineering Amd Operation Services, France vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3392/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2018-19 Assystem Engineering & Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Operation Services Income Tax Circle-1(1) (1) Tour Egee 9-11 Allee De International Taxation Larche Courbevoie France- 92400 Pan No. Aajca2418E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 154(3)Section 234Section 234DSection 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)

against the provisions enshrined vide section 250(6) of the Act. 3. That in the light of the statutory embargo created vide section 251(1)(a) of the Act the action of the Ld. CIT(A) of remanding the matter and directing the Assessing Officer to decide afresh

Nardeep Singh, Hoshiarpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Dasuya

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 637/ASR/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 637/Asr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri Nardeep Singh Ito बनाम/ 104, Vill Baghiarhi, Ward Dasuya Tehsil Dasuya, Hoshiarpur Punjab-144203 Vs. Punjab-144203 "ायी लेखा सं./Pan. Ckbps-0506-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Vijh (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Charan Dass (Addl. Cit)- Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14-10-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Vijh (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Charan Dass (Addl. CIT)- Ld. Sr. DR

Section 144Section 251(1)(a)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘DB’, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR HYBRID HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

Aryavart Bank, Lucknow vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Lucknow

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

ITA 800/LKW/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow16 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank, Vs. Dcit-Range 1, (Successor To Erstwhile Allahabad U.P. Lucknow Gramin Bank), Head Office, 2Nd & 3Rd Floor, Nbcc Commercial Complex, Vardan Khand, Gomti Nagar Extension, Lucknow Pan: Aaaju0568R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. C. Naresh, Fca Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A) Setting Aside The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer That Were Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 On 30.12.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Id. Cit(A), Nfac Erred In Not Granting Opportunity To The Appellant Bank To Present The Case Through Video Conferencing As Specified Under Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2020 Provided U/S. 250(68) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act"). The Hon'Ble Cit(A) Be Directed To Grant Personal Hearing Through Video Conferencing In The Interest Of Justice. Without Prejudice To The Above 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Id. Cit(A) Erred In Invoking The Provisions Of Proviso To Section 251(1)(A) & Setting Aside The Order To Ao Without Appreciating That The Order Was Not Passed U/S 144. 3. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Id. Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Din Was Issued In The Name Of Non-Existing Entity & Hence The Order Passed Is Invalid. Without Prejudice To The Above

For Appellant: Sh. C. Naresh, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 244ASection 250(68)Section 251(1)(a)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 80P

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in invoking the provisions of proviso to section 251(1)(a) and setting aside the order to AO without appreciating that the order was not passed u/s 144. 3. On the facts ... arguing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(A) had erred in invoking the provisions of the proviso to section 251 (1)(a) and setting aside the order to the AO, without appreciating that the order was not passed under section 144. He had failed to decide

Bhagwant Kaur, Mohali vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 122/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal. C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 148rSection 251(1)(a)Section 69

required further verification and examination of the facts and documents furnished by the assessee. The CIT(A) invoked the newly inserted proviso to section 251(1)(a) of the Act (effective from 01.10.2024), empowering the appellate authority to set aside an assessment made under section 144 and remand the case ... sources and that no reasonable opportunity was provided to furnish supporting evidence. The Ld. CIT(A), by invoking the newly inserted proviso to section 251(1)(a), has rightly set aside the assessment and directed the Assessing Officer to make a fresh assessment. In the interest of justice, we find

Sant Harkewal Shikshan Samiti, Ambikapur, Surguja vs. Income Tax Officer-1, Ambikapur

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 570/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur15 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.570/Rpr/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sant Harkewal Shikshan Samiti, Namna Kala, Surguja, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh, 497001 Pan: Aaias1529F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Mr. G.S. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr.DR

Section 147rSection 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ “एक-सद"” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR "ी पाथ