← 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)

M/S. Satia Industries Limited, Muktsar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bathinda

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 193/ASR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144C(8)Section 250oSection 69C

enhancement of DRP as compared to powersof enhancement of CIT(A) as per settled principles of law. The ld. AR relied onplaced the section 251(1) of the Act which is reproduced as below: - “Section 251(1) In disposing of an appeal [Commissions (Appeals)] shall have the following powers ... from various pronouncements of the Supreme Court, Union Tyres observes, is that the first Appellate Authority is invested with very wide powers under Section 251(1)(a) of the Act and once an assessment order is brought before the authority, his competence is not restricted to examining only those aspects

Ahmednagar Investments Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7126/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanvk-Vk-La- 7125@Eaqcbz@2018 ¼Fu-Oa- 2013&14½ Vk-Vk-La- 7126@Eaqcbz@2018 ¼Fu-Oa- 2014&15½ M/S Ahmednagar Investments Pvt. Ltd. 11/12, Raghuvanshi Mill Compound, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel Mumbai-400 013 ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Pan No. Aadca9872E Cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle– 5(3) Room No.1906, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Mumbai-400 021

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal izfroknh }kjk@For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण eqacbZ ihB ß,Þ eaqcbZ Jh fodkl voLFkh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh ,l fjQkSj jgeku

Ahmednagar Investments Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7125/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanvk-Vk-La- 7125@Eaqcbz@2018 ¼Fu-Oa- 2013&14½ Vk-Vk-La- 7126@Eaqcbz@2018 ¼Fu-Oa- 2014&15½ M/S Ahmednagar Investments Pvt. Ltd. 11/12, Raghuvanshi Mill Compound, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel Mumbai-400 013 ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Pan No. Aadca9872E Cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle– 5(3) Room No.1906, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Mumbai-400 021

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal izfroknh }kjk@For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण eqacbZ ihB ß,Þ eaqcbZ Jh fodkl voLFkh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh ,l fjQkSj jgeku

Kanti Lal Duggad, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Raipur

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

ITA 141/RPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.141/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Kanti Lal Duggad 35/1008, Rms Colony, Tagore Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Agapd7948J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

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

Yashasvi Parakh, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bhilai, Durg

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

ITA 140/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 140/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Yashasvi Parakh C/O. Shri Kantilal Parakh 66, Malviya Nagar, Durg (C.G.)-491 001 Pan : Bbspp0705K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

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

Rathi Bandhus Nirman Pvt. Ltd., Jagdalpur, Bastar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Jagdalpur, Bastar

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

ITA 131/RPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.131/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Rathi Bandhus Nirman Pvt. Ltd. Jagdalpur, Baster (C.G.) Pan : Aaecr9010N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-Jagdalpur. ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Durga Prasad Mohanty, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

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

Sai Kripa Trading, Pvt. Ltd, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur

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

ITA 119/RPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.119/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Sai Kripa Trading Pvt. Ltd. G-11, Anupam Nagar, Behind Tv Tower, Shankar Nagar Ward, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aaics1638P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

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

Shankar Dayal HUF, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-30(7), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2200/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. R. S. Singhavi, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ram Dhan Meena, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 251(1)(a)Section 50CSection 54E

Appellant and mechanically setting aside the matter back to the Assessing Officer for adjudication is against the scope of provisions of section 251(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3.1 That even on merits, the claim of sales consideration being supported from valuation report obtained by the appellant

Adim Jati Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Dhorra, Gariyaband vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur

ITA 25/RPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur28 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 25/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Adim Jati Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Dhorra Ground Floor, Main Road Dhorra, Gariyaband(C.G)-493889 Pan: Aabaa7991C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle 1(1) Revenue Building, Civil Lines Raipur (C.G.)-492001 ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234DSection 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

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

Balraj Wine, Shri Muktsar Sahib vs. Assistant Commissioner of Incoe Tax Circle-II, Bathinda

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

ITA 10/ASR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. Prashant Singh, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 272A

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 Aijaz Rahi S/O Shri Mohd Ismail Wani, Banglore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -3 (1), Srinagar

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

ITA 237/ASR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Prashant Singh, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 246ASection 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251

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 Abdul Hamid Malik, Anantnag vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3, Srinagar

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

ITA 236/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Prashant Singh, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 246ASection 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251

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

Bajrang Lal Agrawal, Surajpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ambikapur

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

ITA 260/RPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 260/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Bajrang Lal Agrawal Aman Cold Storage, Bhaiyathan Road, Surajpur C.G-497 229 Pan : Adypa3583F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ambikapur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

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

Gurmukh Das Gangwani, Bhatapara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 246/RPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 246/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Gurmukh Das Gangwani House No.199, Gurunanak Ward, Bhatapara (C.G.)-493 118 Pan : Ainpg1689A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250(6)

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

Aruna Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-26, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5338/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. C. S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 251Section 254Section 2BSection 54BSection 56

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHIBENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Sh. Yogesh Kumar

Smt. Ritu Singh, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6504/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Princy Singla, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 68

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL

Raipur Securities & Investment Limited, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur

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

ITA 104/RPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.104/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Raipur Securities & Investment Ltd. Mig 21, Indravati Colony, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aaccr4419F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

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

Three C Homes Private Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-76(1), Delhi

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

ITA 958/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rishabh Jain, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari R., Sr. DR
Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 251(1)(a)

instead of referring back the matter to Ld. AO in para 4.2.6 of the impugned order. 3. That as per section 251(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the CIT(A) can confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment but cannot remand back the matter ... That as per section 251(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the CIT(A) can confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment. Therefore Ld. CIT(A) ought to have decided 2 Three C Homes Pvt. Ltd. the issue as to whether the assessee company, being payer

Avinash Narayan Sutar, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 28(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the three appeals filed by the asssessee are allowed

ITA 1029/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita Nos. 1029, 1030 & 1031/Mum/2020 (A.Ys: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2010-11) Avinash Narayan Sutar Vs. Ito – 28(1)(2) Plot No. 582, Laxmi Tower No.6, Vashi Niwas, Sector -1, Station, Navi Mumbai- Shiravana, Nerul, Navi 400703. Mumbai – 400706. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Arsps9036R Appellant .. Respondent Ito – 28(1)(2) Vs. Avinash Narayan Sutar Tower No.6, Vashi Plot No. 582, Laxmi Station, Navi Mumbai- Niwas, Sector -1, 400703. Shiravana, Nerul, Navi Mumbai – 400706. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Arsps9036R Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Hariom Tulsiyan.ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha.DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

thinks fit or may direct the Assessing Officer to make further inquiry and report to the learned CIT(Appeals). As per Section 251(1)(a), in appeal against an order of assessment, he may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment, but there is no such power provided

Sekar Jayalakshmi, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward-22(2), West Tambaram

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

ITA 20/CHNY/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.20/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Sekar Jayalakshmi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Doshi – Nakshatra-1, Old Sbi Colony, Non Corporate Ward 22(2), Near Rto, 2E Swathi Block, West Tambaram. Tambaram, Tamil Nadu 600 045. [Pan:Awipj1285G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M.N. Rangamani, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.12.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 10, Chennai Dated 12.03.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 248 Days In Filing The Appeal Due To Outbreak Of Covid-19 Pandemic & Accordingly, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & Admitted For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri M.N. Rangamani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69A

thinks fit or may direct the Assessing Officer to make further inquiry and report to the ld. CIT(A). As per section 251(1)(a) of the Act, in appeal against an order of assessment, he may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment, but there is no such power