← 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)

Nanak Ram Tanwani, Raipur vs. ITO-1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 470/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Raipur10 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.470/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Nanak Ram Tanwani House No.707/708, Near White House, Basant Corner, Khusi Vihar, Awanti Vihar, Raipur-492 006 (C.G.) Pan: Ablpt6737F ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Petition)For Respondent: Ms. Manisha Kinnu, CIT-DR
Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PARTHA

Radhakishan Beniwal, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 695/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 139Section 144Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 194CSection 251Section 68

shall have the powers as enumerated in clauses (a), (aa), (b), (c). In so far as the case on hand, clause (a) of section 251(1) of the Act should be relevant, which states in an appeal against the order of assessment the Commissioner (Appeals) may confirm, reduce, enhance ... learned Tribunal, the assessee had specifically raised the ground that the CIT(A) exceeded the limits of powers statutorily bestowed as per Section 251(1)(a) of the Act and grossly erred in law in restoring the case to the assessing officer for action in terms of the order dated

Radhakishna Beniwal, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 694/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 139Section 144Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 194CSection 251Section 68

shall have the powers as enumerated in clauses (a), (aa), (b), (c). In so far as the case on hand, clause (a) of section 251(1) of the Act should be relevant, which states in an appeal against the order of assessment the Commissioner (Appeals) may confirm, reduce, enhance ... learned Tribunal, the assessee had specifically raised the ground that the CIT(A) exceeded the limits of powers statutorily bestowed as per Section 251(1)(a) of the Act and grossly erred in law in restoring the case to the assessing officer for action in terms of the order dated

Income Tax Officer, Ludhiana vs. Baljinder Singh, Ludhiana

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 424/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 424/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Ito, Shri Baljinder Singh, Ward 3(1), Vs Prop. Kahlon Enterprises, Ludhiana. Sangowal Road, Village Bulara, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Bdyps8904B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.09.2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 144Section 144BSection 251(1)(a)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH

Mukteswar Rao Pasumarthi, Khammam vs. ITO., Ward-1, Khammam

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

ITA 745/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद ‘एस एम सी-बी’ बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘SMC-B

Potu Janardhan Rao, Warangal vs. ITO., Ward-1, Warangal

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 1072/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Us: 2. Succinctly Stated, The Ao, Based On Information That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits Of Rs. 1.08 Crores In His Current Account With Andhra Bank (Now Union Bank Of India) & Made Withdrawals Of Rs. 93.24 Lacs From The Said Bank Account, Initiated Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Act.

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 251(1)(a)Section 69A

Accordingly, the CIT(A), in the backdrop of the powers vested with him as per the newly inserted “Proviso” to section 251(1)(a) of the Act, set aside the matter to the file of the AO with a direction to frame a de novo assessment, after taking into account ... file of the AO for de novo assessment in the backdrop of the powers vested with him under the “Proviso” to section 251(1)(a) of the Act as has been made available in the statute w.e.f.01.10.2024. Elaborating further on his contention, the Ld.AR submitted that as the adjudication

Mr. Narayan Chunilal Jaiswal, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2 (1), Jalgaon

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

ITA 1803/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1803/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr.Narayan Chunilal Jaiswal, V The Income Tax Officer, Ayodhya Nagar, S Ward-2(1), Jalgaon. Varangaon-425307. Pan: Acwpj1153H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ambarnath Khule - Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 04/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/09/2025 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 A.Y.2017-18 Dated 22.01.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under : “The Assessment Order Passed By The Id. Ao & Confirmed By The Id. Cit(A). Nfac, Is Bad & Void Ab Initio & Also Against The Principles Of Natural Justice.

Section 144Section 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 ... 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

Yugal Madhukar Khairnar, Satana vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1, Malegaon

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

ITA 1322/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1322/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Yugal Madhukar Khairnar, V The Income Tax Officer, Dongrej Virgaon, Satana, S Ward-1, Malegaon. Dist-Nashik, Nashik – 423301. Pan: Anmpk4805E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S. Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Ambarnath Khule - Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 04/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/09/2025 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 A.Y.2012-13 Dated 24.03.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under : “1. On The Basis Of The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Assessing Officer Is Not Justified In Making Addition Of Rs. 22,94,000/-

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)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 ... 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

Shri Jayshivrai Nagri Sahakari Patsanstha Limited, Kolhapur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Kolhapur

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

ITA 1257/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1257/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Jayshivrai Nagri Sahakari V The Income Tax Officer, Pathsanstha Limited, S Ward-1, Kolhapur. 2832B Ward Yamula Devalaya Najik Karveer, Kolhapur – 416012. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaqas6598A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar– Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/09/2025 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], Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 13.11.2024 For The A.Y.2018-19 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated

Section 147Section 250Section 250(4)Section 270ASection 271ASection 272A(1)(d)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, Ludhiana vs. Sanjeev Malhotra, Ludhiana

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 411/CHANDI/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 411/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ito Sh. Sanjeev Malhotra बनाम/ Room No 228 First Floor, 298-A Pannu Farm House, Pakhowal Road Aaykar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar Backside Hotel Keys, Kiran Vihar Vs. Ludhiana.141012 Ludhiana 141012 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Achpm-4381-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : None सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08-09-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08-09-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 29-01-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] On Best Judgment Basis U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act On 27-03-2022. In The Assessment Order, Ld. Ao Made Addition Of Unexplained Money For Rs.237.23 Lacs For Want Of Any Effective

For Appellant: Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: None
Section 147Section 251(1)(a)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH Hybrid Hearing BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT

Jai Matadi Enterprise, Murshidabad vs. ITO, Ward 42(1), Murshidabad

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

ITA 1356/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Sept 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)

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

Kunvarji Bhachu Shah, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -31(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1191/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Srivastava, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

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 or annul an assessment

Income Tax Officer, Ludhiana vs. Sanchit Malhotra, Ludhiana

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 365/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 365/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Ito-Ward No.3(1) Sh. Sanchit Malhotra बनाम/ Aaykar Bhawan H. No 1306, Sardar Nagar Vs. Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana.141001. Basti Jodhewal, Ludhiana. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bjgpm-8369-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Smt. Tarundeep Kaur (Cit) (Virtual) – Ld. Dr ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : None सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02-09-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04-09-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 13-01-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] On Best Judgment Basis U/S. 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act On 07-03-2024. In The Assessment Order, Ld. Ao Assessed Income Of Rs.834.42 Lacs As Against Returned Income Of Rs.16.95 Lacs. The Assessee Failed To Make Any Effective Representation During

For Appellant: Smt. Tarundeep Kaur (CIT) (Virtual) – Ld. DRFor Respondent: None
Section 144Section 251(1)(a)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH VIRTUAL HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM AND HON

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad., Vejalpur vs. Gopalbhai Umarbhai Bharavad, Viramgam

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 19/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: The Final Hearing Of The Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Kumbhare, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Hem Chhajed, AR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 251(1)(a)

erred in law and on facts in partly set aside the assessment order to the file of AO, which is in violation of Section 251(1)(a) of the IT Act. (b) The appellant craves leave to add, alter and / or to amend all or any the ground before ... solitary grievance of the Revenue in the present appeal is against the power exercised by the Ld. CIT(A) in terms of Section 251(1)(a) of the Act setting aside the assessment order to the file of the AO for framing assessment afresh. 4. In the facts

Hem Lal Sahu, Raipur vs. ITO-1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 473/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.473/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Hem Lal Sahu Ram Nagar, Gali No.4, Shitla Para, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Egpps3559K

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 249(3)Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH

Income Tax Officer, Ludhiana vs. Shubham Yarns Private Limited, Ludhiana

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 323/CHANDI/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)(Virtual Mode) – Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kumar (CA)- Ld. AR
Section 147Section 251(1)(a)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH VIRTUAL HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT

Income Tax Officer, Gangtok vs. Krishna Prasad, Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross-objection of the assessee where he has asking that addition is required to be deleted stands also dismissed

ITA 1406/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiassessment Year: 2018-19 Ito, Ward-3(1), Gangtok Krishna Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Palas Chattopadhay, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sandip Sarkar, Sr. DR- JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 251(1)(a)

Officer for producing the evidences before the Assessing Officer. It was the submission that this was not permissible in view of proviso to section 251(1)(a) of the Act. It was the submission that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is liable to be reversed. 4. In reply

DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Imran, Bulandshahr

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153CSection 251(1)Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 5. After considering the facts and submissions, the ld. CIT(A) referred to section 251(1) of the Act which reads as under: “Section 251(1)(a) amended with effect from 01.10.2024 reads as under:- 251. (1) In disposing ... under: Page 3 of 5 ITA No. 2 /DEL/2025 Dy. CIT Vs. Imran [A.Y 2020-21 “In accordance with the powers granted under section 251(1)(a), the assessment in the case under consideration is set aside with direction to the AO to make a fresh assessment as per provisions

Asif Nazir Shaikh, Pune vs. ITO Ward 7(4), Pune

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

ITA 986/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 271(1)(c)

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

Asif Najir Shaikh, Pune vs. ITO Ward 7(4) Pune, Pune

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

ITA 985/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 271(1)(c)

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