← All Phrases

“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)

Mohammed Rauf Farook Khan, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Thane

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 4015/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Madhukeshwar Hegde, CAFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kasuri,(Sr. AR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)

make further inquiry and report the result of the same to him as per section 250(4) of the Act. Section 251(1)(a) and (b) of the Act provide Page 6 ITA No. 4015/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2016-17 Mohammed Rauf Farook Khan that while disposing of appeal

Byas Prasad Verma, Kushinagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(4), Kushinagar

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

ITA 2/VNS/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi10 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Byas Prasad Verma V. The Income Tax Officer Vill. Dhaurahara Ward 2(4) Nadwa Bishunpur Kushinagar Fazilnagar, Kushinagar (U.P) Tan/Pan:Amupv6031E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.07.2023, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits To The Tune Of Rs.16,45,000/- In His Saving Bank Account. In Order To Examine These Facts, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Reopened The Case Of The Assessee Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act. Thereafter, The Ao Issued Statutory Notices To The Assessee, Requiring The Assessee To Furnish The Source Of Cash

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 69A

income of appellant without going into the roots of transactions. 6. BECAUSE the learned CIT(A) NFAC has failed to appreciate that that Section 251(1)(a) and (b) and Explanation to Section 251(2) of the I.T. Act requires the CIT(A) to apply his own mind

Princess Infra & Development LLP, Kota vs. ACIT-Central Circle-Kota, Kota

In the result, both the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicate hereinabove

ITA 859/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 144Section 153B(1)(b)Section 153CSection 56(2)(X)Section 68

Assessing Officer passed Ex-parte assessment vide order dated 27.12.2019 under section 144 of the Act hence the aforesaid proviso of section 251(1)(a) of the Act is applicable in the instant case also. We are enclosing herewith an order passed by a CIT (Appeals) NFAC following the similar ... Assessing Officer passed Ex-parte assessment vide order dated 27.12.2019 under section 144 of the Act. hence the aforesaid proviso of section 251(1)(a) of the Act is applicable in the instant case also. We are enclosing herewith an order passed by a CIT(Appeals), NFACfollowingthe similar provision

Princess Infra & Development LLP, Kota vs. ACIT-Central Circle-Kota, Kota

In the result, both the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicate hereinabove

ITA 858/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 144Section 153B(1)(b)Section 153CSection 56(2)(X)Section 68

Assessing Officer passed Ex-parte assessment vide order dated 27.12.2019 under section 144 of the Act hence the aforesaid proviso of section 251(1)(a) of the Act is applicable in the instant case also. We are enclosing herewith an order passed by a CIT (Appeals) NFAC following the similar ... Assessing Officer passed Ex-parte assessment vide order dated 27.12.2019 under section 144 of the Act. hence the aforesaid proviso of section 251(1)(a) of the Act is applicable in the instant case also. We are enclosing herewith an order passed by a CIT(Appeals), NFACfollowingthe similar provision

Shyamprasad Reddy Gaddam, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 196/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 196/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shyamprasad Reddy Vs. Dcit, Gaddam, Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aetpg9117P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Sri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 10/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)- 11, Hyderabad, Dated 02/02/2004, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 144 R.W.S 153A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”), Dated 12/12/2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2 Shyamprasad Reddy Gaddam Vs. Dcit

For Appellant: Sri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 144Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69Section 69A

divested of his jurisdiction to introduce a new source of addition while exercising the power of enhancement vested with him under Section 251(1) of the Act. Apart from that, the Ld. AR had relied upon the orders of the coordinate benches of the Tribunal viz., (i) Sekhar Jayalakshmi Doshi ... said purported course of action during the appellate proceedings. 20. We are of a firm conviction that though, the CIT(A), as per section 251(1)(a) of the Act is vested with the jurisdiction to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment, but in a case where he seeks

Satish Khanna, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-5(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 415/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:415/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. C. Sivakumar, Addl. C.I.T
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 69

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एस एस िव"ने

Bhawani Developers, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-4(1), Lucknow-New

Appeal is disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid

ITA 253/LKW/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 68

well. In this context, it will be useful to refer to relevant provisions of law under section 250(6), section 250(7) and section 251(1) of I. T. Act, which are reproduced below for the ease of reference: Section-250 (6) The order of the [Joint Commissioner (Appeals ... communicate the order passed by him to the assessee and to the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. Section 251 (1) In disposing of an appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) shall have the following powers— (a) in an appeal against an order of assessment

Ojasvi Media Matrix Private Limited, Indore vs. AO, NFAC Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5210/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryojasvi Media Matrix Pvt. Assessing Officer, Nfac, Ltd., 852, Sudama Nagar, Delhi. Vs. Opp. Jain Mandir, Indore (Mp) Pan: Aabco 1930 D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pitamber Kumar, Ld. Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom.) wherein it has been held as under:- “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

Runa Vishal Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 22(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3792/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryruna Vishal Shah, Block Ito, Ward-22(3)(2), No.3, Veer Building, Mumbai. Tagore Road, Santacruz Vs. (W), Mumbai. Pan: Bdcps 8211 D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shashank Mehta, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pushkaraj Bhangepatil, Ld. Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 68Section 69C

Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom.) wherein it has been held as under: - “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

Inner Chef Private Ltd, Gurugram vs. ACIT, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 2184/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sameer Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144Section 251(1)(a)Section 40Section 40aSection 68

that the AO made the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act and hence the CIT(A) exceeded his jurisdiction under proviso to section 251(1)(a) in referring the issue of addition u/s 68 back to the AO for verification. We also find that

Sanjay Jayantilal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 79/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2014-2015 Sanjay Jayantilal Shah Ito, Ward-2(1)(1) 202/A, Shivalik 10 Vs. Vejalpur Opp: Sbi Zonal Office Ahmedabad. Ambawadi, Ahmedabad 380 015 Pan : Aktps 8891 A (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Divatia & Shri Samir Vora, Ars. : Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.11.2024 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"], For The Assessment Year 2014–15, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 31.03.2022 Passed U/S 147 Read With Section 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") By The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Assessing Officer Or Ao"].

Section 10(38)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69C

since the Assessing Officer had recorded partial non-compliance with statutory notices. Relying upon the newly inserted proviso to section 251(1)(a) of the Act, effective from 01.10.2024, which empowers the Commissioner (Appeals) to set aside an assessment made under section 144 and remit the matter to the Assessing ... grounds of appeal and submitted that the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable insofar as the provisions of section 251(1) have been wrongly invoked. It was submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has assumed as if the assessment was completed under section

Nanjappa Shivaprasad, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed for the A

ITA 2073/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 144Section 251(1)(a)

denovo assessment. Since the orders were passed exparte by the AO, the action of the ld.CIT(A) in terms of proviso to section 251(1)(a) of the Act cannot be found faulted with and hence, we confirm the order of the ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal

Nanjappa Shivaprasad, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed for the A

ITA 2072/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 144Section 251(1)(a)

denovo assessment. Since the orders were passed exparte by the AO, the action of the ld.CIT(A) in terms of proviso to section 251(1)(a) of the Act cannot be found faulted with and hence, we confirm the order of the ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal

Samrat Wires Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Mumbai

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the aforesaid terms

ITA 5154/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrysamrat Wires Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, Circle-13(1) Mumbai. 303 Elphinstone House 17, Marzban Road Fort, Vs. Mumbai-400 001

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Agiwal, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Pitamber Kumar, Ld.Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

case of CIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) [2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bom), as under:- 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

Late Jyoti Shashikant Golatkar Thourgh Lr Mrujesh Shashikant Golatkar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 30(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4201/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Prabhash Shankarlate Jyoti Shashikant V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – Golatkar (Through Legal Heir, बनाम 30(1)(5), Kautilya Bhavan, Sri Mrugesh Shashikant Golatkar) C–41 To C-43, G-Block, 2B/35 Baf Hira Nagar, Bandra Kurla Complex, Kharodi (Marve Road), Malad Bandra (East), Mumbai – West, Mumbai – 400 095, 400051, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aafpg5675C Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Bikash Kumar Bogi a/w Ms. Mugda DashoraFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 69A

direct the AOto make further inquiry and report the result of the same to him as per section 250(4) of the Act. 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

Rahul Arun Mandlik, Pune vs. ITO WD- 5(2), Pune

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

ITA 1984/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1984/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Rahul Arun Mandlik, V The Income Tax Officer, Sr No.34/3/2, Kashi S Ward-5(2), Pune. Vishveshewar Apartment, Nt Yenpure Nagar, Dhankawadi, Pune – 411043. Pan: Bmbpm1461M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Smt.Sonal L Sonkavde – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 30/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This 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.2015-16 Dated 16.12.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 Of The Act, Dated 27.03.2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 69A

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

Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(1), Pune, Akurdi vs. Shamsundar Kaliram Agarwal, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 1428/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1428/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Income Tax Officer, V Shamsundar Kaliram Ward-8(1), Pune. S Agarwal, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Near Akurdi Railway Station, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Akurdi, Pune – 411044. Pan: Alzpa2906R Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Amit Bobde – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 29/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue(Income Tax Officer, Ward- 8(1), Pune), Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 154 R.W.S 250 Of The Act, 1961 Dated 28.03.2025 Emanating From The Order Passed Under Section 250 R.W.S. 254 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147rSection 154Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251

apparent from records. The ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] has erred in invoking the Amended Provision of Section 251 of the Act. The relevant Section 251(1) is reproduced here as under : “Powers of the [Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the] Commissioner (Appeals). 251. (1) In disposing of an appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals ... case back to the Assessing Officer for making a fresh assessment;] 11. The ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] has erred in referring the Proviso to Section 251(1) of the Act. The Proviso to Section 251(1) is applicable only when Assessment Order is passed u/s.144 of the Act. In the case

Novelty Power & Infratec Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-7(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2108/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry&

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Jain, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Ld. Sr.D.R
Section 144Section 250Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 69C

Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom.) wherein it has been held as under: - “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

Bhagya Kalita, Guwahati vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Guwahati

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

ITA 257/GTY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati29 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 271A

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

Bhagya Kalita, Guwahati vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Guwahati

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

ITA 256/GTY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati29 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 271A

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