“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)

Shri Rajbirinder Singh Chahal, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(5), Chandigarh

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

ITA 1157/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1157/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Rajbirinder Singh Chahal, The Ito, C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate Vs Ward 5(5), # 527, Sector 10-D, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aeepc0143E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr. DR

Section 249Section 251(1)(a)Section 253Section 3Section 5

Appeals) has erred in setting aside the assessment order for passing a denovo assessment order by exercising the powers under 1st proviso to Section 251(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act without adjudicating the legal issues vide which assessee has challenged re-opening of assessment. b) In second fold ... been empowered to set aside an assessment order if impugned order is an ex-parte order. The proviso has been annexed with Section 251(1) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, ld.CIT (Appeals) has rightly exercised the power because assessee failed to submit any evidence before the AO. A.Y.2013-14

M/S. Swarnim Leasing & Holdings Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 22(4), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA 5528/Del/25 is dismissed

ITA 5528/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Hon’Ble & Shri Naveen Chandra, Hon’Ble

Section 139A(7)Section 144Section 250Section 251(1)(a)

5528_DEL_2025_Swarnim Leasing and Holdings Ltd. Delhi IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI

Income Tax Officer, Exemptions, Madurai vs. Dolphin Educational Foundation, Madurai

ITA 2600/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. C.I.ΤFor Respondent: None

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरि, न्यायिक

Jitendra Nanasaheb Thorat, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(4), Nashik

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

ITA 2307/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2307/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Jitendra Nanasaheb Thorat, V Income Tax Officer, A-7, Chaitrapalavi Apartment, S Ward-2(4), Nashik. Ashok Marg, Near Bank Of Maharashtra, Behind Fame Cinema, Nashik – 422006. Pan: Afypt8886Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi (Through Virtual) Revenue By Shri Ajitesh Kumar Meema –Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 29/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30/01/2026 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] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2011-12 Dated 28.07.2023 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Act, Dated 27.12.2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

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

Chandini Duvvuri, Hyderabad vs. ITO, (Int Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1855/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1842/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Chandini Duvvuri, Vs. Ito (Int. Taxation)-1, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aympd9716A (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1855/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Chandini Duvvuri, Vs. Ito (Int. Taxation)-1, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aympd9716A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Siva Charan, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Sankar Pandi P, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 30/01/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Hyderabad, Dated 04/09/2025 & 08/09/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Respective Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Chandini Duvvuri Vs. Ito (Int. Taxn) Act”), Dated 15/05/2024 & 27/05/2025 For Ay 2016-17 & Ay 2017- 18, Respectively. As A Common Issue Is Involved In The Captioned Appeals, Therefore, The Same Are Being Taken Up & Disposed Of By Way Of A Consolidated Order. We Shall First Take Up The Appeal Filed By The Assessee For Ay 2016-17 In Ita No.1842/Hyd/2025 & The Order Therein Passed Shall Apply Mutatis Mutandis For The Purpose Of Disposing Of The Other Appeal. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:

For Appellant: Shri Siva Charan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Pandi P, Sr. AR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 251(1)(a)Section 69

order passed under section 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act, therefore, in exercise of the powers vested with him under the “proviso” to section 251(1)(a) of the Act (as was made available on the statute vide the Finance Act, 2024 w.e.f. 01/10/2024), set aside the matter

Chandini Duvvuri, Hyderabad vs. ITO, (Int Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1842/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Siva Charan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Pandi P, Sr. AR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 251(1)(a)Section 69

Mamatha Gubbala, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1170/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

assessee was completed under section 144 of the Act thus, in exercise of the powers vested with him under the “proviso” to section 251(1)(a) of the Act, set aside the matter to the file of the AO for framing of fresh assessment. For the sake of clarity ... appellant, it is necessary to set-aside the proceedings to the file of AO for fresh assessment within the meaning of Section 251(1)(a) proviso. The above action of setting aside the proceedings would grant the appellant an opportunity of natural justice SO that he can produce the necessary

Edgeverve Systems Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 294/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

relevant material is already available on record. It is also pertinent note that vide Finance Act 2024 a proviso inserted below to section 251(1)(a) of the Act confirming power to commissioner/joint commissioner of appeal in respect of setting aside the assessment and refer back the case

Edgeverve Systems Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 293/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

Edgeverve Systems Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 292/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

Edgeverve Systems Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 291/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

Edgeverve Systems Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 290/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

Natarajan Vasudevan, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Non Crop Ward 3(2), Coimbatore

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3365/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy.S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3365/Chny/2025 िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Mr. S. Bhupendran, Advocate

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI सु"ी पदमावती यस, लेखा

ACIT Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Sunjewels Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7390/MUM/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Arun Khodpiaacit, Circle 3(2)(1) Sunjewels Private Limited Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, 605/606, 6Th Floor, Multistoried Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Building, Seepz S.O., Andheri (E), Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 096 Pan/Gir No. Aabce 3519 L (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Ravikant Pathak, Ca Respondent By : Shri Swapnil Choudhary-Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.01.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against Order Dated 08.09.2025 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi For The Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2016-17. 2. The Effective Grounds Raised By The Department Are As Under: 1. "Whether, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Was Justified In Setting Aside The Assessment Order Passed U/S.143(3) & Remitting The Matter Back To The Assessing Officer For Fresh Adjudication, Despite The Clear Restriction Contained In The Proviso To Section 251(1)(A) Ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961, Which Permits Such Power Only In Cases Where The Assessment Is Made U/S.144 (Best Judgment Assessment)?" 2. "Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Having No Jurisdiction To Set Aside Or Remand An Assessment Order Passed U/S.143(3), Acted Beyond His Statutory Authority In Law, Thereby Rendering The Impugned Appellate Order Dated 08.09.2025 Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed?" 3. "Whether The Ld.Cit(A), Instead Of Exercising The Powers Vested In Him Under Section 251(1)(A) To Confirm, Reduce, Enhance Or Annual The Assessment, Wrongly Assumed A Power To Restore The Matter To The Assessing Officer, Which Is Ultra Vires The Provisions Of The Income Tax Act, 1961."

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant Pathak, CAFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary-Sr. AR

Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 251(1)(a)Section 69C

u/s.143(3) and remitting the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, despite the clear restriction contained in the proviso to Section 251(1)(a) ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961, which permits such power only in cases where the assessment is made u/s.144 (best judgment assessment)?" 2. "Whether ... liable to be quashed?" 3. "Whether the Ld.CIT(A), instead of exercising the powers vested in him under Section 251(1)(a) to confirm, reduce, enhance or annual the assessment, wrongly assumed a power to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer, which is ultra vires the provisions

Income Tax Officer, Ludhiana vs. Goyum Screw Press, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 606/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 606/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year. : 2017-18 The Ito, Vs Goyum Screw Press, Ludhiana. 324/2, Industrial Area-A, Opposite Berger Paints, Millerganj, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaffg9228H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Honey Bajaj, Advocate. Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2026 O R D E R Hybrid Hearing Per Raj Pal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Honey Bajaj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Sr.DR

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

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

Natungram Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Limited, Murshidabad vs. ITO, Ward 42(1), Murshidabad

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

ITA 905/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 251Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

rightly set aside the assessment order and referred all the issues back to the Ld. AO as per the Proviso to section 251(1)(a) of the ITA No.: 905/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Natungram Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Limited. Act, therefore, there is no reason to interfere with

Oneel Verma, Nashik vs. ITO-5(1), Bhopal

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

ITA 394/IND/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

completed ex parte due to non-compliance and held that the matter required extensive verification of facts. Relying upon the amended provisions of section 251(1)(a) and section 153(3) of the Act, the CIT(Appeals) set aside the assessment order and restored the matter to the file

Nirmala Sunil Nawale, Karegaon, Tal Shirur, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 13(1), Pune, Bodhi Towers, Gultekadi

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

ITA 2946/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2946/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vs Ito, Ward Nirmala Sunil Nawale, Kk Nag Ltd, Anand Patil 13(1), Pune 86 Midc, Ranjangaon, Shirur Pune-412220 Maharashtra Pan-Almpn3657K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vishwajit Shinde

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 69A

CONTENTION OF THE LD. AO AND REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT. 7) HON. CIT(A) FAILED TO FOLLOW THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 251(1)(a) BY NOT SETTING ASIDE THE CASE TO THE LD. AO AS PER THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BEFORE HIM. 8) THE LD. ASSESSING

Kakinada Infrastructure Holdings Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly

ITA 1053/HYD/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.

For Respondent: MS Reema Yadav, Sr. AR

Section 270A

Bench of this Court discussed the scope of Section 31(3)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 which is almost identical to Section 251(1)(a). The Court held as under (at p. 328 of AIR): “If an appeal lies, Section 31 of the Act describes the powers ... what he has failed to do. (emphasis supplied) * ITA.No.1053/Hyd./2025 6. The above observations are squarely applicable to the interpretation of Section 251(1)(a) of the Act. The declaration of law is clear that the power of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is conterminous with that of the Income

Income Tax Office, Ludhiana vs. Sri Guru Hargobind Educational Society, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 71/CHANDI/2025[2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Jan 2026

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

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Gupta, C.A (Virtual Mode)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 251Section 270ASection 271ASection 69A

existed for restoring the matter for fresh adjudication. 6.1 The DR argued that the CIT(A) incorrectly relied on the amended provision of section 251(1)(a) without demonstrating its applicability to the facts. It was emphasized that the additions of Rs.1,00,28,281/- under section 69A as unexplained ... note that such material had never been examined by the Assessing Officer, set aside the assessment for fresh assessment by invoking powers under section 251(1)(a) as amended by the Finance Act, 2024. 8.1 The Revenue’s contention that the Ld. CIT(A) could not restore the matter despite